Below is my column in the New York Post on the unhinged response to Vice President J.D. Vance’s historic defense of free speech in Europe. The chorus of criticism from press and pundits was immediate. Literally speaking through tears, German diplomat Christoph Heusgen responded to VP Vance: “It is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief that this more multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles.” Indeed, it is and that is a good thing. Vance was speaking truth to transnationalists who view free speech as a threat to the “international order” that they maintain. The response from the American left was even more bizarre. Not only did CBS’s Margaret Brennan suggest that free speech caused the holocaust, but Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) said that Vance, in defending free speech, used “some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.”
Here is the column:
On Friday, Vice President JD Vance gave a historic defense of free speech at the Munich Security Conference. In front of a clearly hostile assemblage of European diplomats, Vance confronted our allies with their systemic censorship as they demanded more support to “defend democracy.”
For the free speech community, it was akin to Ronald Reagan’s call: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
Vance questioned how our allies could claim to be the bastions of freedom while denying free expression to their citizens.
He then delivered this haymaker: “If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.”
Not surprisingly, the Europeans sat on their hands while glaring at Vance for calling them out for their hypocrisy. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius declared Vance’s remarks were “not acceptable.” An unnamed German official in attendance declared, “This is all so insane and worrying.”
The outrage of the Europeans was only surpassed by our own anti-free speech voices in government, the media and academia.
Commentator and CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.”
It appears that free speech is no longer viewed as pro-democracy.
Indeed, it could be outright fascism.
In one of the most bizarre attacks, CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio over Vance’s support for free speech given the fact that he was “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.”
In other words, it was free speech that brought Hitler to power and caused the Holocaust.
Brennan’s statement is completely detached from history and logic.
Germans did enjoy free speech protections after World War I, though the Weimar Constitution was more limited than the First Amendment. However, one of the first things that the Nazis did in coming to power in 1933 was to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. Censorship is the harbinger of authoritarianism and Germany is the ultimate example of how no censorship system in history has ever succeeded in killing one idea or stopping a single movement.
Brennan could not have picked a better country to utterly destroy the point that she was trying to make in favor of limits on free speech.
Germany continued to censor and criminalize speech after World War II, targeting the neo-Nazi movement and other prohibited viewpoints.
Authorities charged citizens for everything from wine labels to ringtones with banned content. The government has sought to force figures like X owner Elon Musk to censor Americans and others to combat anything that it deems “fake news” or “disinformation.”
Of course, Germany’s massive censorship effort has done little to deter the thriving neo-Nazi movement. What it has done is chill the speech of ordinary citizens. One poll of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet.
Other nations joined in the harrumphs with equally disingenuous statements, including the United Kingdom. British diplomats expressed shock despite their systemic suppression of free speech, including arresting citizens for simply praying to themselves near abortion clinics.
The British have doubled down on censorship with sweeping new laws. Hundreds have been arrested recently for speech crimes like spreading “fake news” or disinformation that could lead to “non-trivial psychological or physical harm.”
Previously, British citizens were arrested for criticizing religious groups or opposing homosexuality or immigration. In one case, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime.
The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
In 1963, John F. Kennedy went to Germany to declare “Ich bin ein Berliner” to express solidarity with those who were fighting for the right to live and speak freely behind the Iron Curtain.
More than 60 years later, Vance returned to essentially declare “Ich bin ein Amerikanischer,” affirming our commitment to a right that not only defines the United States, but once defined Western civilization. He argued that if we are to defeat our foreign adversaries, we must first protect those rights that distinguish us from them.
The response of our press and pundits only proved Vance’s point. We have returned to the moment described by Tom Paine during our Revolution, a time that would “try men’s souls.”
Those opposing free speech today are like “the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot” who, Paine warned, would “shrink” from the defense of our values.
The anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe has finally reached our shores.
Vance drew a bright line in Europe and we will all have to decide on which side to stand. Some obviously have made the decision to stand with Europe.
For the rest of us, we will stand with 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 am sickened by our medias reaction to this speech, and the things being said by the left.
Vance literally made them cry. He made the Germans cry. Because truth hurts. That’s why that guy cried, he just couldn’t stand hearing the truth.
Yet our press and the liberals in congress are literally making fools of themselves and drawing a line in the sand they don’ want to draw, because MOST Americans are going to be FOR free speech. Oh sure there’s some lilly livered “safety-Karens” who go around selling the idea of authoritarian control of public discourse but for MOST of the population free speech is going to be a no-brainer. Its an American foundation stone. A corner stone of our entire way of life and form of government.
And as professor Turley has pointed out so often, its not just a “Constitutional right” in the US, its a “human right” that extends beyond any borders. All people should have that inherent right. Not privilege, …but a RIGHT. Its something no decent or honest person would ever argue against.
And it is a line in the sand. Turley’s right that on this one you’re just going to have to pick your side and stand. Its not partisan, its about good and evil. Freedom of speech is good. Government censorship is evil. Simple as that.
And to the IDIOTS on the left claiming Vances speech or for that matter “free speech” is how the Nazis came to power, well, there you go. Free speech is for good and bad ideas and that’s a bad one that’s easily exposed by better speech, as the professor pointed out by linking to the Holocaust museum page where they discuss Nazi censorship. However it didn’t start in 33. That’s when the party officially took power but prior to 33 the Nazi, then known as “DAP” (Deutsch Arbeitet Partei) was actively suppressing free speech throughout Hamburg and Berlin. During the Beer Hall rallies the Brownshirts would literally arrive with clubs and torches and they’d literally drag out speakers from the Social Democrats and the Conservative party into the streets and beat them until they went away. That’s how Hitlers speeches became so powerful. He was the only one allowed to talk. Him and the SA.
They literally rode around in trucks, and when they’d see social democrats, communists, conservatives, etc speaking publicly they’d assault them to silence them. That’s how they took power, they used force to silence free speech, long before they had any legal authority to do so.
By 1933 when the Nazi party won enough votes to be recognized and Hindenburg caved to appoint Hitler Chancellor, they had already silenced any and all dissenting voices. There was no one to oppose them.
Silencing free speech has always been the first step of any totalitarian govt, and to suggest otherwise, …I mean to suggest “free speech is how the Nazi’s came to power” is a blatant and ignorant lie on every level and the absolute IDIOTS on the left (or right) making such an argument are just lucky we have free speech so they can say such stupid things.
Its a complete lie. Its “MISINFORMATION”, and what these morons fail to realize is that its the very free speech protections they’re speaking against , that is allowing them to say such idiotic and untrue things.
So no dummies, the Nazis did not come to power because of free speech. They came to power through FORCED CENSORSHIP OF ALL DISSENTING VOICES, and that’s documented history.
I’m glad Vance made those German weasels cry. Truth hurts.
Most Americans can barely understand how their judicial system works let alone how government works.
Their gullibility and naivette is astronomical. Many can’t even pass a basic U.S. citizenship test and that’s scary.
Yup. That’s how Leftist propaganda is so easily able to bring in new recruits and expand numbers. Not revival “wokes.” They’re simply baptized right in….by immigration lawyers and counselors…up to and continuing into educators controlling curricula.
Sounds like you, George
“Most Americans can barely understand how their judicial system works”
This from the moron who claimed that the Statute of Limitations could be tolled for a weekend golfing trip.
His sister Gigi said that the Supreme Court would “reverse” legislation, and that a TRO/EI is the same as losing a court case.
His brother Dennis McInliar predicted that Fani Willis would put Trump in a Jawaja jail.
George-Well we know you don’t. Think, that is. Pretty much everything else you say is nonsense
I don’t get your point. What does this ambiguous generalized statement have to do with “anything” I just wrote?
Is this a form of Tourette’s, where you just blurt out random sentences or is there a point to this “reply” to me?
It’s not left-versus-right. It’s elites-versus-working man and woman. This was illustrated two months ago when Cenk Uygur was invited to speak at the most recent Turning Point USA conference in Arizona – and he did speak, sitting on stage with Charlie Kirk and describing himself as the a member of the progressive flank of the populist movement. He was a welcome guest at a conference put on by an organization the media would describe as right-wing. The left-and-right imagery cannot capture that.
The Left in this country – the media, academia, and the Dem party in DC – is really the vanguard of elitism. I believe “left” is now out of date.
They’re leftists. Their dream is communism where Americans will be stripped of all their possessions and forced to eat at soup lines in the middle of the street. Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk etc., changed sides because that’s where the money is. Deep down what they really want is a 1984 story with everybody looking at the screen that the future state will provide for us. Don’t fool yourself.
Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk etc., changed sides because that’s where the money is
I think you have a reasonable argument re Bezos and Zuck. Musk is a different story. He is far more principled. I could elaborate, but I’m not sure anyone will read this.
Dear Prof Turley,
This is what happens when you educate (and elect!) a semi-literate Hillbilly like J.D. Vance. You can’t shut them up.
I suspect a proper appreciation of education, AI and economies of scale will play an increasingly important part in the exercise of free speech in the 21st century. Root hog or die.
German elections soon . .. and I don’t think Olaf Scholz is winning any popularity contests.
*it’s cold in Munich .. . and the Germans still want to know who blew up the pipeline.
This is what happens when you educate (and elect!) a semi-literate Hillbilly like J.D. Vance.
I’m assuming that’s irony, given that he’s a Yale-educated lawyer.
Irony? J.D. was not always a ‘Yale-educated’ lawyer old man . .. and I’m not sure if you’re bragging or complaining?
*the point is J.D. has a long tongue, a license to practice law, and a big microphone.. . they can’t shut him up, even if they wanted to.
NotSoOld: I was recently surprised to learn how many very.famous.actors. of Hollywood Stardom–and who seem (by visibility) to have such a stronghold on American thinking (e.g., what’s in, what’s out; what’s acceptable in opinion, what’s censorable thinking, etc.) –did not even complete high school let alone any college? or ever left California from birth until now? (not that a college degree is needed by anyone, but please…..)
Did you happen to see Tom Hanks on SNL’s 50th party, reminiscing on his earlier skit playing the rural MAGA contestant on a version of Jeopardy?
semi-literate Hillbilly? Really, are you a cowardly Yankee?
If it were not for those semi-literate pig-ignorant hillbillies and crackers, you probably would be speaking German unless you’re a Jew or a minority; then you’d be dead. You know guys like Admiral Nimitz, Chesty Puller, George Patton, Audie Murphy, Nathan Bedford Forrest III, General Simon Boulevard Buckner, and two of my cousins, General John Archer Lejeune and General Thomas Cebern Musgrave.
Amazingly enough, the semi-literate hillbilly graduated summa cum laude from Iowa State then went on to get his JD from Yale and was on the Yale Law Review. I’m sure he did it all through affirmative action. The Germans are know mostly castrati; you can stab their children in the face run over them, hell you can rape 1600 women in one night and it doesn’t get their attention. they’re afraid you might say something Islamophobic like Orthodox Islam is an abomination, with a 1400 years of genocide Conquest and misogyny.
Well, J.D. is not ‘semi-literate’ now Steve, but he is still a hillbilly .. . from the dark and bloody hunting grounds (i.e. around Jackson ky.).
*we must be talking cross-purposes.
my wife is from Harold, Kentucky (Floyd County) Obviously, I missed your point. Her grandfather died in a Coal mine. most definitely a hillbilly.
Professor Turley, there are some interesting free speech issues being raised in civil RICO litigation filed in North Dakota courts by Energy Transfer against Greenpeace for their role in the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. There is an article in City Journal that addresses the protests, Greenpeace’s alleged role in funding them and the use of the First Amendment as a defense. See: city-journal dot org/article/dakota-access-pipeline-energy-transfer-greenpeace-lawsuit?skip=1
The people of the EU are being ruled by a centralized, unelected, government based in Brussels. It will be up to the EU people in elections to say ya or nay to being ruled by them. That centralized, unelected, government based in Brussels, fears free speech as it challenges their power. People might start thinking for themselves that centralized, unelected, government based in Brussels does not have their best interests in mind.
No they are not. This shows why U.S. has no idea how things work in the EU. Even the Brexit idiots found out the hard way.
Ignorance is celebrated, even promoted here as a virtue.
Ignorance celebrated… G, you are the epitome of ignorance.
Says the ignorant one. LOL!
Thanks, you proved it again g.
Yes we are. About 90% of our legislation is made by the European Commission, who are unelected.
The MEPs have no power.
Don’t call others ignorant when you haven’t got a fking clue.
Regards from Dublin 🙂
Centralized, unelected based in … , um, seems to me you’re describing Washington DC.
I have to agree with George on this one. IMO Brussels acts more like our Federal Reserve embellished with EU constitutional powers.
It’s an interesting Animal, the world is still waiting to see how it does for ‘Itself’. Which is what the Trump Administration policies are speaking too.
In a sense the President is saying: Alright, Its time the training-wheels come off, the time has come to see EU peddle on your own.
And it is time.
What really makes America great and the primary difference between foreign nations is the American Oath of Office. A supreme loyalty oath for government personnel to follow the constitutional rule of law. Maximum democracy within constitutional out-of-bounds.
During World War Two, our enemies like Nazi Germany, German government officials swore a supreme loyalty oath to a single dictator. Therefore treason was defined as pledging loyalty to the dictator.
During the Cold War, our enemies pledged loyalty to a political party.
American government officials – from the local police chief to the FBI to the CIA – pledge supreme loyalty in their job authority to a constitutional rule of law. American officials pledge loyalty to NOT violate anyone’s constitutional rights. No American official has that legal authority.
Vance should be applauded for supporting freedom of speech, but First Amendment rights only survive if America nurtures a culture loyal to their supreme loyalty oath.
Without proper loyalty culture of American officials, there is no real freedom of speech and gun rights or property rights won’t survive either.
On Inaugural Day, Vance’s boss made a promise to GOD to uphold the U.S. Constitution and faithfully follow the laws passed by Congress. Vance’s boss broke that promise the very same day trying to illegally overturn the 14th Amendment and illegally trying overturn laws passed into law by Congress.
Mr. Vance should start here before preaching to other nations! Free speech, gun rights and property rights only survive in a loyalty culture that follows the Oath of Office.
Ditto – A well said summarization.
What really makes America great and the primary difference between foreign nations is the American Oath of Office.”
Oath? Um… seems to me the last presidency was all about excoriating the oath.
No different than the new one.
Oath of office? LOL!!! Trump fires anyone who pledges an oath of office. He demands an oath of loyalty to him. Not the office.
Trump’s approach to the 14th amendment has a basis in the text itself, the writings of its originators, and even in other court decisions. It is a legitimate argument and it will be up to the Supreme court to make a ruling. Nothing is illegal about Trump’s forcing the issue into the courts.
Look the Euros need the war to continue to keep American forces and money in Europe. They need American money and troops to further there tyrannical welfare state. And the bureacrats in Brussels need the welfare state along with de-indutrialization to stay in power to promote their globalist agenda. They will stop at nothing to derail peace talks and that says all you need to know about the ethics of these people for whom war is a means of making a living. Yeah, they have a special place down there.
Yes I can see that (agreed) They believe keeping the endless war intact to collect subsidies from the U.S.. It seems to have become their policy.
But the U.S. doesn’t need to be involved with the European Theater (for lack of a better words).
It’s over and We need to take care of Our own ‘Theater’, and if that means buying Greenland, Canada, and everything from Panama to Mexico,
then that’s money well spent. Much better and tangible than spending it on the Europeans. Ukraine is a perfect example for your analogy.
I could give a s_ it if the Europeans get run over by the War Lords. I only care about my Corn & Soybean fields.
You mean your corn and soybean crops that have no buyers because of the tariffs? No subsidies either because it’s wastefull according to DOGE. Those yields will go to waste when you can’t find buyers or are forced to sell it so cheap you don’t make a profit.
Duh? Leave it up to geoge to make an A or himself.
George at 10:52: Ahem, most of the world would starve without American soybean and corn, and wheat, exports.
No George, I mean that this Country is stronger Economically when it can feed itself and still have an abundance to feed others.
The Farmers of this great Nation are a integral part of the The Wealth of ‘the’ Nation(s) (sic)[Adam Smith- 1776].
George, currently there is a world-wide Glut of Corn & Soybeans, as a result the price at the Selling Price at Elevators have come down quite considerable since, and the Storage Cost have increased.
Corn: since May 23rd 2022 peak ($806.82/bsh) – Today (~$502.00/bsh)
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/corn
May 16th 2022 (1713.60/bsh) – Today (~$1039.30/bsh)
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/soybeans
Profits are the function of when to When to Sell, When to Hold and How long you can afford to Hold (timing) from a Farmers perspective.
There is always a Market. Being smart about it is another thing.
George, You sound so much like a Canadian.
“You mean your corn and soybean crops that have no buyers because of the tariffs?”
Please cite your reference for this.
You mean there’s too much American corn that will be delivered to Americans at a lower cost? That will equal the farmers original income? Oh that. Or will they just burn the fields?
“You mean your corn and soybean crops that have no buyers because of the tariffs?”
Huh?
The tariffs you’re talking about are on *imports*, not on exports.
One Trumptard accuses Europe of being a tyrannical welfare state and another Trumptard accuses Europe of being fascist. They’re mutually exclusive. Which one is it? I guess in their little MAGA pea brains the only way they know how to analyze anything is to put everything into unrealistic extremes and denigrate. Maybe I’m doing that? Maybe Trumptards aren’t retarded and are capable of nuanced thought without having to denigrate? If so, I haven’t seen it yet. The whippings will continue until morale improves.
They’re mutually exclusive.
LMAO, no, they’re not, pea brain
Vance’s speech has certainly stirred up the European diplomatic corps but the real question is whether it advances American interests. The US has long been the standard-bearer of free speech, but that does not mean we must conduct our foreign policy as though we are on a crusade rather than at the negotiating table. Our strength has always come from a combination of moral clarity and strategic patience, not from antagonizing allies who, for all their faults, remain vital partners in global stability.
Free speech is not merely an American export but a hard-won right that must be defended within every society on its own terms. The Europeans, like us, have their own challenges balancing liberty and order. It is true that Germany, Britain, and others have placed restrictions on speech that would be unthinkable under the First Amendment. But let’s not mistake this for an existential crisis of Western civilization. The greater concern is whether the United States and Europe can maintain a united front against authoritarian regimes that truly seek to silence their people whether in Moscow, Beijing, or Tehran. If our internal squabbles over free speech undermine that unity, then we will have done more damage to our cause than any foreign adversary could hope for.
Leadership is about building coalitions not simply winning applause from MAGA. Free speech is a principle worth defending but so too is the transatlantic alliance. The art of diplomacy is not in making bold declarations but in securing results.
Vance is being ridiculed in Europe. They know that speech was not for them. It was for the benefit of U.S. gullible idiots and Trump’s ego.
I repeat this: it is ironic that it was the famous German philosopher Georg Hegel who promoted the paradigm of “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” as the model toward reaching truth/reality and homeostasis. You can only achieve this through dialectics (the open exchange of opposing ideas) worked through by presentation and argument until reaching a “synthesis.”
Politically, in this country we once had just that: a bilateral system of representation wherein Congressional members worked through their differences toward bilateral agreement. But today it is often recessing toward tribalistic representation with one party suppressing/trying to defeat/gain control over the other.
That is what is happening in Europe as well, as it tries to accommodate the influx of diverse populations with different values and ideas–and not willing to “when in Rome, do as the Romans do.”
Re: a bilateral system of representation…
“The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.”
– Julius Nyerere –
First President of Tanzania
OldFish: –not familiar with that interesting quote, thank you for that!
(interestingly, Nyerere’s socialist egalitarian gov’t didn’t hold up so well over the years, but the newer multi-party “democracy” isn’t doing so well either….
see, e.g., https://apnews.com/article/tanzania-opposition-protest-chadema-94b57b1027ed052964a0cd7d370f492b)
Lin,
Great analysis. Thank you.
Lin, I liked and enjoyed your comment, as I always do, but I disagree a tad with …”one party suppressing/trying to defeat/gain control over the other….” Republicans might try to gain control over the political environment (House, Senate, WH), but they don’t try to suppress Democrats in the same manor that the Dems try to suppress anyone that disagrees with them.
Proof of mu above point is the way Democrats and the media where aghast that JD Vance would be critical of Europe’s censorship with CBS being the lead float in the parade with Margaret Brennan and 60 Minutes showcasing their support for censorship.
hello there hullbobby: yes, I agree that Republicans do not stoop so much to the tactics of Democrats, but I still see less cooperative, yielding, give-and-take (from either party) than I would think needed for agreeable resolution.
I’m going to put my little tusche out on a limb and say that I believe Republicans are a superior party, given emphasis on meritocracy and a push toward excellence, but the Democrats (by the nature of their makeup) likely will always be greater in number, so where does that leave our ‘republic’… “if we can keep it?”
p.s. love your “lead float in the parade” metaphor.
p.s.p.s. I watched the US-CA hockey game and it will be interesting with the re-match coming up…
p.s.p.s.p.s. I had a crush on Gordie Howe growing up (dad and brother watched hockey every weekend).
Good Morning Lin, thanks for your reply and again I will say that I agree with your comment entirely. Although I will dispute that there are more Democrats (and there always will be) because I don’t think that is so, but the problem is that the media is ALL Democrats and that is why their views are amplified.
I don’t think you need to be worried about being out on that limb because your argument is spot on. I hope we are right because I am out on that limb with you.
The US-CA game was a real treat, let’s hope They win it on Thursday.
As for your hockey crush, I loved Gordie Howe too and he was the first superstar that I ever saw. At a Bruins game that my older brother took me to there was a big group of people surrounding a guy and everyone was getting his autograph and it was Gordie. Back in those days you could walk right up to the players like that. But then I ended up idolizing the GOLDEN JET, Bobby Hull and I still have my scrapbook from those days with clippings, autographs and yes even Polaroids of the man himself that my buddy and I took. However being a Boston boy (I have since moved south) I had to admit that the great Bobby Orr was the greatest hockey player ever and I really admired the guy. Great guy, great player! he is the Beatles of athletes.
Enjoy your day!
Wasn’t the Hegelian dialectic a refinement on Socratic dialog? That wouldn’t be possible given the impersonal, anonymous, and ad-hominem “infowarfare” of today’s media. Socratic dialog on high-stakes topics has to be moderated by a skilled conversation-manager. I’ve seen the dialectic work.
One area where dialectic synthesis fails (even adhering to rules of civility) is where the physical / biological world has its own logic. Creative compromise has to satisfy that external logic in order to work.
“Wasn’t the Hegelian dialectic a refinement on Socratic dialog?”
No.
His dialectic is an unvarnished defense of contradictions. A complete rejection of Aristotelian logic. It is not the method of back-and-forth, give-and-take that some believe it to be. His “synthesis” means in essence: Embrace contradictions.
And it is his political theory, the Organic theory of government, that was a major cause of Naziism.
Hegel is a prime example of the dictum: Germany, the land of poets and philosophers, was brought down by its poets and philosophers.
Wholly disagree with you, buddy. Yes, Hegel’s synthesis embraced and defended contradictions, but its properties (original theses and developing contradictions) are all part and parcel of a linear move forward. Dynamic, not static, understanding of all.
Sounds like you went to school in the 60s or 70s and Karl Popper might have influenced you.
Maybe Vance is well-meaning but naive.
In the USA there are two worlds of government – Overt & Covert!
Vance said all the correct things about the overt public perception of American government. The Covert world of government is the real reality of America in the 21st Century. Both parties have tolerated this illegal covert system exceeding 20 years now.
Bush era Republicans created “Fusion Centers” in every state after 9/11. A covert blacklisting program which punishes perfectly legal First Amendment activity – many if not most Americans targeted were not blacklisted legally under the Fourth Amendment. Today in 2025, few blacklisted had any legitimate links to 9/11 or terrorism.
More recently, the ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark ruling “Carpenter v. United States”. This ruling legally requires a judicial warrant for longterm surveillance itself (any surveillance exceeding 2 weeks requires a search warrant).
The court’s purpose of the “Carpenter” ruling was to prevent “warrantless personal mapping” of any American – basically to prevent any official (local, state or federal) from creating dossiers on citizens without court approval and supervision.
In 2025, in the covert world of government, the vast majority of police chiefs and federal agency heads violate the “Carpenter” ruling – the supreme law of the United States.
Vance’s rhetoric makes a great bumper sticker slogan. The reality is far from it! We do it too – covertly!
Just the fact that, still, we in America can even discuss this is the good sign that we are not easily falling down that black pit of censorship to the extent of the remainder of the globe. That wrong ruling that stated “Yelling fire in a crowded theatre” is what opened this door for us and it should be revisited by SCOTOS, quickly, to underscore what a mistake that was. Not only did it give the government the right to sneak a peak at us, but it gave the always screaming minorities a bludgeon against free speech under “hate speech” legislation, that must be declared unconstitutional if we are to win this battle.
So you’re saying that in Europe, if you said bad things about, say, Macron, you’d go to jail. LOL, have you been to Europe?
In Germany, its a fact. Go watch the 60 minutes episode if you dont believe it.
I don’t need to go to Europe, I’ve studied their entire history for the last 50+ years and if the French are not at the point of Germany by now, they are not far behind. Europe has been a mixture of extremism and despotism since its formation after the fall of Rome. There is no rationale for anything they have done from the Inquisition, the barbarity of the French revolution, the idiocy of Napoleon to hitler’s extreme fascism and then the dopey east Germans embracing communism. I have little faith that this concentration of so many disastrously misinterpreting the enlightenment and I only hope that their mental illness does not destroy more of American culture than they already have.
Europeans have no one else to blame but themselves. They made themselves ‘dependent’ on the rest of the World (mostly the US, China, Russia, Brazil, India, Indonesia, etc.. (e.g.: Large & Small Industrial Nations).
Trumps stance “Beggars can’t be Choosers” is in their Face As for this week’s geopolitical spot light, especially Ukraine.
The WAR (WWII) is long over and the The “Marshall Plan” (1948) has given the Europeans “opportunity” for 77 years. A solid 50 years from 1975 of Economic Stability to do as they choose. Germany has worked the hardest over this period, but has become a victim of it’s own success with overly socialized entitlements and swamped with immigration problems. So goes the other nations of the European Continent. Overall their Governments have become complacent, apathetic and dependent (its obvious).
Trump aims to secure the North American Continent, is exactly what needs to be done, so We don’t end up as the Europeans have now. Shoring-Up the Front Lines (Greenland, Panama-to-Mexico) encircling this Continent is a necessary requirement. “God helps Those,Whom help Themselves” is obvious, and equally obvious that We cannot Help Others if we cannot help Ourselves.
Manifest Destiny”: While not explicitly stated, McKinley’s actions aligned with the concept of “Manifest Destiny,” a historical belief that the U.S. was destined to expand its territory across North America.
“God Bless America” means that We the People of America have to do whats necessary to receive that Blessing. Trump is doing his best to do this Are You? This is Our Land and Our President, We need to support the mission of this Nation in order to Make It Great Again.
It’s not an “Old Glory” … It’s a New Glory (2025) that must be renewed time over time.
“. . . a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.” (CBS’s Margaret Brennan)
Apparently, that brainiac has never heard of Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s Minister of Propaganda – – the censorship machine that controlled everything: rallies, radio, domestic and foreign news, films, music, theatre.
Or is she claiming that free speech is fascist. And that to avoid fascism in America, we need to dump free speech.
Or (more likely): She’s clueless. And has no idea what her words mean.
I think Margaret Brennan is just wondering, in the Weimar era, if speech freedom is supposed to bring out the best (common sense) in a people, how was it possible for the allure of Hitler to take hold? This question is about the process through which he came to power, not how free speech was crushed once he obtained power.
She is referring to Hitler’s cunning use of populist manipulation to move from being a prisoner to Chancellor. She is questioning whether those premeditated manipulations of public opinion ought to pass for “free speech”? In essence, she is asking, what was it about the public square in Weimar Germany that failed to stop the ascent of a psychopathic madman who left his country destroyed and defeated? Obviously, Hitler took advantage of speech freedom on the way up, then clamped down on it once in power.
The question, and Margaret could have articulated it much more clearly:
In a free speech environment, is it possible for the public to be duped into electing a dictator? Is the public square a playground for evil ambitions to operate without constraint?
“The [answer], and [I] could articulate it much more clearly if I had the time:
In a free speech environment, is it possible for a national and overarching MEDIA to return to a modern-day version of the Fairness Doctrine, such that the public will not be duped by one-sided and selective-fact presentations of real world issues?
Only with a complicit media, lying their asses off. Like ours.
Excellent piece.
As many have expressed, it’s astonishing that Europe is once again in the grip of a fascist free fall. Though I’m glad the masks have largely been ripped off for the globalists and their machinations, we are just getting started. The last time we confronted this on scale, most of Europe played along until it was much too late and we had quite the mess on our hands. There are so many factors we could point to, it’s been a confluence, a perfect storm – doesn’t matter at this point. We have to stand firm and end it or we lose everything.
Why do Trump’s ‘tards get the definition of fascism so utterly wrong? Fascism is a far-right authoritarian political ideology that emphasizes ultranationalism, centralized control, and militarism. None of the countries in the EU remotely subscribe to this. I think in your little MAGA pea brain is works like this: “Fascism bad. Me not like Europe cuz Trump not like. Europe bad. Facism bad. Europe fascist.”
@Anonymous coward
Sigh. Whatever. I think the rest of America’s IQ increases proportionately to how yours devolves over time. As ever, there is no cure for stupid, and we are fools if we think, though it’s a great start, that cutting off USAID will stop these morons, like the above poster, in their tracks. It’s a start.
Rooting out and killing the Soros tendrils will be a decades-long endeavor, but we’ll do it. At least we have begun; may it continue into perpetuity. The days of this troll accomplishing anything other than being annoying, like a very young child can be, are over. For good. I have a lot of life left, and am determined to only further marginalize the likes of ‘Anonymous’, every single year of my existence. I hope we are united in that, and we sure seem to be.
Yes, but in Europe they have free health care and 6-month paid vacations for new mothers and fathers.
Who knew that German diplomat Christoph Heusgen and Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) were ideological soulmates ??? Ironic that Germany is barreling right into Kristalnacht 2.0. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article. Please keep them coming. Greg
Today’s comments on SteynOnline.com by Mark Steyn are marvelous. He has been a stalwart defender of free speech for many years having been prosecuted by Canada and Great Britain and dragged through the courts of Washington DC for speaking out.
Vance is arguing for the ability of conservative and centrist voices and ideas to be heard and to influence policy.
If you asked Vance to defend Joe Biden & the CIA’s exercise of “free speech” in lying about Hunter’s laptop, and the impact it had putting Biden in office the past 4 years, would he endorse that kind of manipulative, inauthentic speech as deserving to be spread by media allies?
The thing I’m struggling for is a definition of free speech that not just gets my ideas out there, but defends against the use of the public square to deceive, intimidate and/or destroy me. That’s clearly not “anything goes” or “nothing passes”, but rather something in the middle — a freedom with certain responsibilities attached.
Or, we could go with a partisan, double-standard definition of free speech, which is totally loose when we’re the underdog fighting to be heard, then, when WE’RE in power and responsible for keeping order in the face of mortal enemies waging deceitful infowarfare to destroy us, flips to a definition of free speech with limits.
In a rule-based-system, the challenge is to erect a definition of free speech that both promotes free exchange of goodwilled thought — AND defends against ill-willed, mendacious manipulation/interference by our militant enemies. It’s more complex a problem than either Vance or the European elites would care to admit.
Right now, I think most people have lost patience with a rule-based-system approach, because of the way it can be constantly gamed to circumvent rules. But there are dangers in moving to a system where rules differ for friends vs. foes. At some point, you can expect to be seen as a foe of those in power. That’s when you’ll be regretting abandoning a system of blind justice.
I am sure he would not ‘endorse’ such speech, he has probably condemned it. However, I suspect he would also not endorse laws that would make such speech illegal. Surely, you can recognize the difference?
I do. But there are different ways that such election interference could be “made illegal”. The 1st Amendment rules out prosecution, and good for that, because prosecutors are political actors. What about lawsuit? What if there were Public Frauds law which allowed ordinary people to sue a political campaign for eggregeous manipulations like the laptop coverup? I mean, file lawsuit immediately, which would make Biden’s media allies think twice about just running with the narrative?
Sure, the devil is in the details. There would have to be some threshold for filing these suits (e.g. close to an impending election, high stakes). And the court would have to act with rapid due-diligence, denying the infowarriors the tool of delay. But the idea of doing NOTHING to effectively counter a media-backed whopper intending to tilt an election — that’s taking free speech a little too far.
And if you don’t think it will happen again…you’re just being escapist.
pravda
Turley is merely seconding a flawed speech that serves as nothing more than propaganda for American audiences and Trump, rather than resonating with Europe. Dressing it up as grand or historic is pure drivel.
While Turley may champion the ideals of free speech, he overlooks a crucial point: the principles of free speech in America often clash with those in other countries, particularly in places where the concept is better understood by a better educated people who understand nuance and context. Instead of the ramblings of the ignorant and the cognitively impaired.
Take Trump’s recent threats against CBS and 60 Minutes for editing an interview with Harris—an editing practice that’s standard in all media outlets, including Fox News. Similarly, the White House admonished and punished the AP for referring to the Gulf of Mexico instead of the Gulf of America. Both situations reflect a stark contradiction to the free speech principles that Vance advocates. We are, without a doubt, among the biggest hypocrites regarding free speech, a fact Turley conveniently avoids because it calls into question his argument. This is especially glaring when a so-called “free speech absolutists” like Elon Musk silences dissenters and criticson his platform just because they disagree.
Vance’s speech doesn’t represent the grand vision Turley means; it’s just a carefully crafted message tailored for American consumption and to fondle Trump’s massive ego.
What Vance’s speech did do is reinforce Europe’s view that American is no longer a trusted partner and clearly determiend to be isolationist and dictatorial under Trump. It makes China look more attractive as a trade partner which further isolates the U.S. as an influential world body. U.S. farmers rely on free trade with Europe and other nations and now they are looking elsewhere for their supply of wheat and soy and other products that they can trade without tariffs with other nations that can easily fill the void left out by american farmers. Canada can sell more oil to China to offset their dependence on the U.S.
Turley has yet to make a case for Palestinian students or any foreign student being threatened with deportation because they choose to exercise their free speech right to protest against Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing. Trump is literally calling for punishing students for daring to speak against Israel’s atrocities. It’s a violation of their free speech rights while they are here. Everyone who is within our borders has the right to be protected against government infringing on their free speech rights and protected from retaliation by the government. Turley is dead quiet about this and he’s showering accolades to VP Vance’s free speech tirade against Europe while we violate ours free speech rights with impunity against those they don’t agree with. Hypocrisy is the name of the game with Turley and those on the right.
No need to read this nonsense. Keep moving, nothing to see here.
You’re only saying that because you’re mentally incapable of offering a rational rebuttal. We know what your limitations are.
“Go away now!” (The Critical Drinker)
Um, we had similar impulses in this country in the early 20th century. It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. Half the things you say about Trump would get you prosecuted in Germany.
Yeah, back in the late 30’s and early 40’s Not anymore.
George,
The Europe that produced Locke and Voltaire is over, any free thinkers that remain are in hiding. Europe is embracing their worst and calling it a virtue.
America has many of the same type of shitweasels trying to mess us up over here. Instead of being watchdogs for the American people most of our press has become lapdogs of the state. The level and type of editing required to make Harris appear as a viable candidate is called propaganda.
The Arafat look is not a good one. Some of those idiots crossed the line into harassment and rioting. I would say that in those cases deportation for violation of the terms of their visa is correct.
I’m highly skeptical of laws that specifically address antisemitism. We already have sufficient, general-purpose laws to address any serious problems of violent behavior. Also, I consider boycott, whether I agree with it or not, to be an absolute right as part of freedom of speech. State laws requiring potential contractors to sign pledges appear plainly unconstitutional to me. It looks like very weird social engineering of viewpoint advocacy.
I think it was fantastic for Vance to slap those idiot EU weenies upside the head with a herring because they suck.
I mostly agree. Voltaire and Locke were arguing against the stifling authoritarianism of the church and feudalism. John Stuart Mills devised a calibrated notion of freedom: The maximum amount of freedom compatible with order, not just to be enjoyed now, but by posterity into the indefinite future.
The Western European leadership (except Meloni) would say they totally subscribe to JSM’s dictum, but simply refuse to acknowledge the cascading disorder in their midst. In areas like migration, they gave too much freedom at the cost to domestic order. Rather than admit their mistake, they are doubling down, and that makes them treat opponents of immigrant rights as “the enemy”, stripping them of freedom of speech and ability to win elections.
Common sense from the Enlightenment left the continent’s leadership decades ago.
Good comment. The Europeans thought open immigration would solve their problem of low birth rate. This theory had no basis in fact. They didn’t understand that those they invited in not only didn’t agree to this “social contract”, but had their own counter theories of social organization.
I am not all that surprised by the UK. It was Oceania of Orwell’s 1984, after all. Rule by English socialism.
Anything less than completely free, unmitigated, and unrestricted free speech is not “educated” or “nuanced”, it’s totalitarian. Government is not in the business of policing what people are permitted to hear or permitting what person or party can run of office. That is the classic definition of dictatorship. The only solution is removal by any means necessary.
You’re thinking of your speech rights. I challenge you to step out of your shoes, and think about what speech rights you are willing to give to your enemy — someone who hates you and wishes to destroy your life, and take away everything you value…your home, your family, your job, your savings.
Do you grant your enemies in attacking you “completely free, unmitigated, and unrestricted free speech”?
Or, is it “free speech for me, but not for thee”???
Absolutely. When I say freedom of speech I mean ALL voices. That freedom is useless unless it protest the most vile and degusting things I hate and vehemently dislike and disagree with.
George, paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 are just rants. I’ll address your substantive claims in the other paragraphs.
Paragraph 3: CBS editing was not typical; it crossed the line into blatant propaganda. Trump filed suit to call them out. The AP is not being silenced or jailed. The Whitehouse is under no obligation to host them.
Paragraph 4: all the countries you contend will surround and destroy us with trade sanctions actually engaged in tariffs and intellectual property theft for decades. Your weak sisters in D.C. never did enough to stop it. I would add that they are in no condition to engage the US in a trade war. Their economies are in far worse condition.
Paragraph 5: any foreigner openly supporting a terrorist organization (Hamas) can be deported. Your friends in Beijing would be even less tolerant. Apparently you were just fine with Hamas starting this by murdering civilians.
Diogenes,
George’s post was so long I left the AP thing out of my reply.
There is only so much space in the press room. Now, instead of allowing the media giants to control who has access it is the administration, and rightly so.
It looks like the AP is worse than just refusing to call a giant meteor crater the Gulf of America. They apparently have writing standards that are anti free speech. I think they were booted because they are not an honest press and are doing a disservice to the American people. Make room for actual journalists. Maybe they can redeem themselves someday, who knows?, stranger things have happened.
https://totalnews.com/aps-top-9-style-guide-decisions-that-enforce-far-left-speech-codes/
The press conferences are televised. The AP can get their info like most others do.
“Turley has yet to make a case for Palestinian students or any foreign student being threatened with deportation because they choose to exercise their free speech right to protest against Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
—-George the spastic fool
The President has the authority, granted by CONGRESS, to prohibit or revoke the entry of ANY CLASS of ALIEN, by simple proclamation if HE determines they are detrimental to the interests of the US. HE determines. HE alone.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) has been invoked by EVERY President since 1981. EVERY ONE.
Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean Turley has to justify it to your pea brain.
“to speak against Israel’s atrocities.”
What atrocities? Unless you can explain yourself, you sound like a goof ball
Allen, George pretends to not know what war looks like. When a civilian population votes to terrorize and murder another population, such as Gaza has done to the Israelis, the consequences are terrible but just. Dresden and Hiroshima were worse than Gaza by far but justified by fascist atrocities and intransigence. George would be perfectly fine with firebombing Moscow and he knows it. This guy is just trolling.
“This guy is just trolling.”
He sure is, and what do the people on the blog think about George Svelaz? He’s a nutcase, strange and not too bright. Of course, a few might defend him, but they are in the same class. Have we seen any intelligent person defending him? No. His only previous options were to change his name to be discovered repeatedly.
There is a big hole in the blog for an intelligent lefty. None dare come not because of the right but because they do not wish to be associated with the George Svelaz’s.
Where does “free speech” end and “fighting words” begin?
Wow, what a deep philosophical question?
Inauthenticity. Outright manipulation. Intimidation.
You asked the question. It’s NOT hard to answer if you’ve thought about it.
Here we are still keeping the republic that Ben Franklin says we have. Almost 250 years now. That keeping has been done by We the People as citizens. Not as subjects. Not as commoners. Not as nobility. Europe, among others, needs to ask itself why such a counter intuitive, fractious notion as free speech is inextricably intertwined with the very same nation they can’t do without. Winston Churchill said it. Never have so many owed so much to so few.
Wait, you see yourself equal, to say, a billionaire? A president? If you can’t see there is a difference, you are a slave to the US government, they rule over you. They take your life and your assets with a whim. The US government is a threat to all. All governments are a threat to all.