Below is my column in USA Today on the restoration of free speech protections at Facebook and Meta. Earlier this year, I wrote a column on the plan at Meta to follow X in the reduction of censorship systems. I stated that the free speech community should give Meta a chance to prove that it was not just restoring free speech, but abandoning its earlier practices. It appears that it has made major strides and some of us are returning to Facebook.
Here is the column:
I created a Facebook account recently.
No one was more surprised than myself. From my book, “The Indispensable Right,” to my past columns, I have been one of the most vocal critics of Facebook and Meta regarding their free speech policies.
From their expansive censorship record to their failure to disclose details on their coordination with the federal government, many in the free speech community saw Meta as the embodiment of the anti-free speech movement growing around the world.
Then something happened. Elon Musk happened. He bought Twitter and dismantled its massive censorship operation. He then turned over what became known as the Twitter Files.
Those files confirmed extensive coordination by the government with academia and social media companies to censor speech, including core political speech.
Eventually, Facebook released its files, and founder Mark Zuckerberg apologized for the censorship that had occurred under the prior system, pledging to restore free speech protections. In doing so, Meta adopted some of the changes Musk made at the newly named X.
Meta can be a gamechanger for free speech
For many, the Meta culpa seemed strained and opportunistic. However, I had the opportunity to have in-depth discussions with Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan about these plans. I was impressed and I wrote that, despite the bad blood with the company, the free speech community should give Meta a chance to prove that it was serious about restoring free speech protections.
As I stated in my column, we need Meta. Musk changed the trajectory of the fight for free speech, but the difference between the two companies is impossible to ignore. X reports that it has roughly 600 million users. Facebook remains the largest social media company, with more than 3 billion users.
For free speech defenders, it is the difference between England’s entry into World War II and the United States’ entry. Musk slowed the progress of the anti-free speech movement. Zuckerberg could reverse the direction.
Recently, Kaplan and I reviewed the progress at Meta. He was remarkably transparent and candid about their efforts, and what I learned was heartening.
The chief global affairs officer stated that “we are allowing more speech,” but the company has not seen an explosion of hate speech as a result of greater tolerance for opposing views. He admitted that “content was being taken down that should not have been taken down. We reduced over-enforcement.”
“We reduced the number of false positives by more than 50% without an explosion of prevalence,” Kaplan said. “We track how many times our classifiers ‘get it wrong’ through labeling and human review.”
What he found was that “we had this blunt approach to reduce civic content in their feeds on Facebook and Instagram. We removed those and started treating political content like other content. We fundamentally changed how we treat content.”
Facebook is relying more on community notes rather than removal of postings, much like X. The company now has a massive number of community note contributors and a system designed to counter the most biased or strident posters.
The biggest change has resulted from modifying the company’s classifiers, the automated systems used to enforce policies. Meta found that these classifiers were too broad, resulting in excessive content being taken down. It turned off low-precision classifiers, except for illegal and high-severity areas ‒ like terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud and scams.
At the same time, Meta has implemented greater monitoring to track “false positives.” It was able to reduce the number of false positives by more than half without any significant increase in violating content. Now, in its integrity report for the second quarter, Meta shows that it has achieved an even more impressive mark in reducing over-enforcement, cutting enforcement mistakes in the United States by more than 75% every week.
The experience at Meta seems to confirm what some of us have long argued. Yielding to those who demand censorship only produces an insatiable appetite for more speech curtailment. It fuels a class of speech phobes, who spend more time trying to silence others than speaking their own voices.
Meta experienced this same snowballing of censorship. Notably, when the company moved to restore greater free speech protection, it did not experience a comparative rise in violative speech.
European Union poses biggest challenge to free speech
The greatest challenge, however, still lies ahead for the company. The European Union remains the greatest threat to free speech facing Americans. After Musk purchased X with a pledge to restore free speech, figures like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded that the EU use its infamous Digital Services Act to force X to censor Americans.
The EU has threatened Musk with confiscatory fines that could surpass $1 billion, according to The New York Times.
Meta is clearly trying to find an accommodation with the EU, which may still object to its move to rely on community notes rather than direct censorship. The EU could also object to the reduction of broad classifiers in allowing a greater scope of discussion and dissent.
However, with the Trump administration warning the EU about its efforts to censor Americans, Meta could help recreate a formidable alliance for free speech. For the first time, the free speech community might have a coalition of government and corporate allies that could stand up to the EU.
Hopefully, Meta will expand its notification to citizens in EU countries that they are being denied access to information due to “geoblocking” pursuant to EU censorship regulations. With a united front in the United States for free speech, we can serve as a bastion for those who value this human right.
That is why I have created a Facebook account (jonathanturleyUSA). No doubt, it was the moment that Zuckerberg had long dreamed of.
However, it’s possible that he truly wants to restore free speech in social media. What is clear is that he is already drawing the ire of the anti-free speech movement, which previously unleashed an unrelenting campaign against Musk and his businesses.
The free speech community needs to support Meta. That does not mean that we are chumps. We have often found false friends in both government and corporations.
If Meta stays on this course, we could finally have a coalition of the willing to fight for free speech on a global scale.
Call it a leap of faith in Facebook with our eyes wide open.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Professor Turley continues to argue against what he perceives as the EU’s “attacks on free speech,” while ignoring similar actions taken by the Trump administration. The double standard is evident.
For instance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently announced a new policy that will revoke the visas of students, tourists, or H-1B workers if they are found to be celebrating Charlie Kirk’s demise. This implies that free speech only applies to citizens, excluding legal immigrants and resident aliens. The Constitution does not exempt foreigners within our borders from the rights granted by the First Amendment. While Professor Turley criticizes the EU for censoring Americans on Facebook, it’s important to note that Facebook operates in the EU under their regulations. Turley opposes these rules, arguing that they do not adhere to First Amendment standards, even though they are outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution. However, he fails to address our government’s actions to silence and intimidate the speech of legal aliens and immigrants by threatening their visas and deportation. This, in my opinion, constitutes an attack on free speech and is a direct violation of their First Amendment rights.
Some may argue that these individuals are merely guests, but that does not change the fact that they are within the jurisdiction of our Constitution and possess certain rights, with limited exceptions for specific rights of citizens as spelled out in the document.
Charlie Kirk advocated against banning or punishing hate speech. However, Attorney General Pam Bondi has announced that they will prosecute individuals who engage in hate speech or celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death. It appears increasingly clear that the Trump administration and MAGA leadership are exploiting his death to further an agenda that involves smearing and attacking the left. The right has been using Kirk’s tragedy as a pretext to criticize the left and to silence those they believe do not deserve the right to free speech, such as foreign students, legal permanent residents, and H-1B visa holders. Perhaps Professor Turley should focus less on criticizing the EU and more on the blatant attacks on free speech happening within our own borders.
While the speech policies of the EU are reprehensible those of China are the biggest threat by far. They ban X and Facebook and disappear those who transgress on homegrown media. These authoritarians have managed to cow 1.4 billion humans and would love notheing better than to get the rest of the planet under their thumb. They already are able to censor speech in the US and the EU to a far greater level than they should be aable to and their use of TikTok to sow dissension is undoubted. One of the most disappointing things about Trump is his continued allowance of the existence of TikTok. He should draw a bright line and tell the Chinese either they allow X and facebook unfettered access to China or TikTok is gone. We all know how that would end!
I once posted a comment critical of Hillary under an Instagram post praising her. It was deleted within seconds as “spam.” They kept wanting me to sign up for Threads, but expressing my opinions on a Meta,app seemed an exercise in futility
Nothing would make me happier than to accept the Professor’s potential optimism here; if true, it is fabulous news.
But Zuckerberg is a businessman first and last. Everything he does is about money and I think it likely he would sell his soul to become even wealthier.
If the Ds take Congress in ’26 and win the White House in ’28, I fully expect Zuckerberg to do a backflip, and quickly.
@shadowvanned
Just as the dems lost the general the second Trump got up after being shot, they lost the midterms with Kirk. That ship has already sailed. If enough momentum toward free speech can be built in the meantime it could be an exponential shift, though like you, I trust Zuckerburg about as far as I can throw him. Guess we’ll see.
The midterms are 14 months off. At the pace things have been going sideways (abroad and domestic), might it be a little premature to be predicting how voters will be thinking?
“I think it likely he would sell his soul to become even wealthier.”
GHz or THz?
Meta’s corrected speech screening algorithm and Turley’s conception of free speech still diverge as far as I can tell. It’s really hard to tell how far Turley’s ideal of free speech goes because he never discusses reasonable limits (only defamation).
The thing I have the hardest time accepting is the substitution of algorithms for human curation of what deserves to be published. Turley doesn’t seem to even question that social experiment in dehumanization of intermediation. Where is the concern that these tech firms employed PhD psychologists to design addictive properties into their apps? What about strong evidence that teens addicted to social media suffer depression and suicide ideation?
I could be wrong, but it seems that Prof. Turley concept of free speech completely discounts a human moderation or curation role for deciding what is fit to publish. He seems willing to hand over enormous power to algorithms controlled by corporations to shape society — so long as he feels the algorithms align with his thinking. What could possibly go wrong?
Despite denying he is a free speech absolutis Professor Turley does seem to espouse a free speech absolutis stance. He just won’t go as far as openly admitting it.
Elon Musk does claim to be a free speech absolutist, but often falls short of that claim when it’s pointed out that he does censor those who are critical of him on his plaform.
Is Professor Turley a free speech absolutist? He doesn’t say, but his actions and view say otherwise.
well, his actions speak louder than his words – he lets you comment despite the – ahem – the garbage you post.
Hear hear
“The thing I have the hardest time accepting is the substitution of algorithms for human curation of what deserves to be published. Turley doesn’t seem to even question that social experiment in dehumanization of intermediation. Where is the concern that these tech firms employed PhD psychologists to design addictive properties into their apps? What about strong evidence that teens addicted to social media suffer depression and suicide ideation?”
It’s worse than you may suppose. Use of bots to evaluate the “acceptability” of posts can create a continuum far more nuanced than a human moderator making a boolean “go” or “no go” decision. So-called “shadow-banning” can also very much be nuanced, and multi-dimensional as well, resulting in selectivity not only regarding how visible a post is, but to *whom* it is visible. The groups of potential readers of that hypothetical post could be stratified in a myriad of ways. This could allow Meta (or any other social medium) to claim that a post was not “censored” or suppressed, while governing the impact of it through minute management of the audience, and at the same time making detection and demonstration of their conduct by human outsiders difficult, of not impossible.
Trust Zuckerberg? NOPE!
“Trust Zuckerberg?”
Sure. I trust him to continue to be the sleazy, slimy, smarmy, hypocritical, lying SOB that he has consistently been since the founding of Fecebook.
Free speech! We have it now! Tremendous! No one has seen anything like this! No more cancel culture! We did it! Also don’t forget to call employers when people use their right to use words to celebrate a murder, because the “F your feelings” cult is really sensitive about opposing opinions.
And ban flag burning. And ban books. Because I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I can use the government to silence opinions we don’t like while whining for years about having opinions silenced (which, when it happened, was equally wrong).
King Moron didn’t incite J6 by sending everyone to the Capitol: that’s just the boogeyman Left trying to implicate the Dearest Leader in History. Meanwhile one random nutbag goes after Kirk, and it’s the collective fault of millions.
The only consistency with the Pizza Hut spokesman and his deluded minions is hypocrisy. And I know, I know, the Biden Derangement Syndrome crowd is ready to cry about the prior administration, especially because Biden sued the New York Times for $15 billion and the Wall Street Journal and individual pollsters, because he was a total beta and against free speech.
And yet: I’m going to dismantle the deep state = install a deep state.
The election was stolen! = Let’s steal elections by gerrymandering and taking control from the states we don’t like.
Free speech!
We’re coming after you.
Magat brains are pretzel-shaped.
^ CCP paid troll. Ignore. ^
Scratch the surface of “free speech” advocates, and the double standard is glaringly obvious. If Prof. Turley were within reach of gravitas, he’d be defining the level of public speech rights he’s willing to cede to his enemies — those who would gladly destroy his career, threaten him and his family members, and radicalize his children to hate America and rebel against their parents.
I can assure you, it wouldn’t be “anything goes”.
We’re not making any progress on this issue until we are willing to discuss responsibilities attached to freedom to speak in the public square (social media)….things like authenticity, transparency, trustworthiness, civility and goodwill.
The danger in defining free speech rights uber-permissively is that the most manipulative, least ethically-bound, zealotry-possessed will abuse those freedoms to bathe us in artful half-truths until nobody knows what to believe anymore. They’ll strip the public square of trust and confidence, leaving a dysfunctional dystopia in their wake.
It’s good to stand up for free speech, but it must come with some qualifiers.
“ We’re not making any progress on this issue until we are willing to discuss responsibilities attached to freedom to speak in the public square (social media)….things like authenticity, transparency, trustworthiness, civility and goodwill.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
The crowd on the right loves free speech, but they often avoid any form of accountability and responsibility that comes with it.
They issue inflammatory rhetoric while pretending to be innocent or ignorant of its consequences, as if it is acceptable to throw a grenade into a crowd and then avoid responsibility and ignore the aftermath. They argue that they are free to speak their minds but believe they are not responsible for the consequences.
That is why the EU considers inflammatory speech conduct. They believe there is responsibility and accountability attached with the exercise of speech. The one subject Professor Turley seems to avoid or ignore and which he should address more often. He speaks of rage rhetoric, but only as a means to paint the left.
I red his book “The Indispensable Right”, and came away feeling the author is avoiding the major contradictions the follow from extravagantly permissive free speech (unburdened by responsibilities).
He writes from the vantage point of the powerless chump who is frustrated with an overbearing powerful government, and wants to vent their anger without being prosecuted. Who can argue with that?
But what about the powerful who take their speech freedom as a green light to dupe the public for political advantage? He doesn’t step into the shoes of a citizen who is deliberately being misled by someone much more powerful. Nor, does he draw the line at porn operators who take their free speech as having free access to minors, even against the express wishes of their parents. Nor foreign agents reaching into the minds of American youth to confuse and demoralize future America. These are all contradictions to free speech defined too expansively.
Turley only supports using the legal system for defamation lawsuits. Otherwise, his pathetic advice is “we have to put up with it” and be satisfied to merely complain about it after the fact. There’s no moral strength from Turley. There’s not even practical thinking about having a public space where people can trust the information being shared. It’s just more radical individualism (weakening the power of the community to assert norms and standards).
JT is a great lawyer and a smart guy. I just think him capable of much more.
If you want to see gerrymandering, look at what Illinois Democrats did in 2021. After they ended Kinzinger’s career in Congress, Adam was masochist enough to join Pelosi’s Dump on Trump committee, chaired by election denier Bennie Thompson.
And don’t forget all the states, from Massachusetts to Hawaii, where at least a third of the voters are Republican, yet they send not a single Republican to Congress.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/should-the-washington-post-have-fired
Freedom of Speech, not Freedom from Consequences.
https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-confession-tyler-robinson-texts
I have no problem with taking a wait and see attitude with Facebook. I have used it in a limited degree for a long time. Mainly to keep track of friends and their children as we exchange photos of kids and grandkids. If free speech is truly back then it can be a real force for education, and useful interactions between people.
For example recently I had a long and enjoyable interaction with several people from the UK as we discussed warships and particularly battleships and who had 16” guns and what classes were involved. Lively and funny. Just another interest I engage in.
I like what I see recently. I also like that we see what people say in their own hand (so to speak). There are billions out there and the community check should be enough if allowed to work. Nothing wrong with critics unless your skin is extra thin.
Speaking of attacks on free speech, yesterday President Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate the possibility of charging protesters under RICO. These protesters had been shouting outside a restaurant in D.C. where he and his cabinet members were dining to demonstrate how safe it is. Shouting slogans like “Free Palestine!” apparently upset the president enough to suggest that they be charged and jailed as “paid agitators.” Meanwhile, Professor Turley claims that the EU is attacking free speech. Perhaps he should focus more on issues at home, where our Constitution applies, rather than on foreign nations.
President Trump and his administration has been attacking free speech more than Professor Turley would like to admit. To criticze Trump would bring untold fury and anger from MAGA world and Trump. If the president is demanding jail for protesters exercising their free speech rights while he is dining imagine what he would demand if Professor Turley really criticized Trump.
X
These protesters had been shouting outside a restaurant in D.C.
So the question IS. Was it private property or?
Shouting from a public sidewalk is not a crime, nor is protesting the president from that same sidewalk. The president appears to be frustrated by individuals exercising their rights to free speech and has asked his Attorney General if they could be jailed under RICO, claiming—without proof—that they are paid agitators. He seems intent on silencing those voices he disapproves of, which has been evident for some time. The question remains: when will Professor Turley speak out against this clear attack on free speech? It seems he is hesitant to criticize the president directly, likely out of fear of being targeted by MAGA supporters or by the president himself if he dares to voice his opinion. This is not a conducive environment for free speech.
x
GEORGE Shouting from a public sidewalk is not a crime.
You didn’t answer my question? Is it public or private. I’m vert sure george didn’t check.
What a stoopid comment.
So you have no answer then. right?
You most certainly do not. You cretin.
The answer was right on your face. “Shouting from a PUBLIC sidewalk is not a crime.”
Can’t write a comment of over 10 words eh. An intellectual giant folks.
All they do is March and protest with a phrase on a sign. Presumably they also think in phrases and clichés. Why pay attention? Because they begin to burn things, then loot, then murder. The flag burning is an action, a behavior that escalates under the guise of free speech or even this pan banging marching until they’ll eventually murder and say it’s their expression.
Free speech and press are limited to the medium in reality.
Speaking about the EU, in Germany the so-called public media ZDF, WDF, ARD are financed by mandatory monthly user fees. If you own a TV or radio you are legally obligated to pay, even if you don’t have a TV or radio. Refusal to pay can lead to major fines. Do recall a few years ago someone was put in jail for refusing.
Now, ZDF/ARD board of directors are overwhelmingly politicians (BTW, being a politician in GY is a “professional certification” – go the university at no cost to themselves to be a politician for the CDU or SPD) of the major political parties, CDU, SPD, Gruene, and in some cases with Die Linke (the Leftists), but just not the AfD, are on the boards so that free speech is just a theoretical anomaly in Germany. They ride roughshod over the AfD and persons who do not tow the line in Germany.
Insulting a politician online in GY will get you a hefty fine. Seems the ghosts of Nazism are alive and well in good ole Germany.
Please. You TOE the line — a line scratched in the dirt — it is not towable.
Personally, I don’t much care if Turley promotes his work. He has been consistent, coherent, and mostly complete in his summaries. He doesn’t support vitriol, hate, or acrimony. This does not apply to some of the commentary to his columns. However, I think he may be too optimistic about the EU, a place that has not functioned in its own self-defense since 1945, i.e., 80 years in a cocoon of self-indulgence, self-congratulations, and self-centeredness. They are foundering on multiple layers of government, hating the USA but praying they will help as needed.
They helped us after 9/11. Did they not? They all chipped in to attack Afghanistan and fight Al Qaeda. They provided significant military assistance including troops, equipment, and money. They shared intelligence and coordinated with the US. They did a lot.
X has not been performing well since Musk took over. Back in April, it was revealed that they lost 40% in revenue year over year and 66% in the UK. They have also been losing subscribers and advertisers due to increased racist content and inconsistent moderation practices.
Professor Turley’s complaint about the EU is peculiar. His concerns regarding Americans being censored by the EU overlook the EU’s interpretation of free speech. In the UK, violent and inflammatory rhetoric is considered conduct. That is their interpretation. Why does the professor insist that the EU adhere to American standards? It would be arrogant to expect the EU to conform to our constitutional standards instead of their own.
In 2024, three girls were stabbed in the UK by a British citizen. However, on X, false claims and inflammatory rhetoric from far-right influencers and commentators—similar to the current rhetoric surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination that blames the left for his death—sparked violent attacks on Muslim immigrants and riots. Within 24 hours of the attacks, speculation and rumors about a Muslim immigrant being the attacker garnered 24 million views, further fueling anger and hate toward innocent Muslim immigrants who had nothing to do with the stabbings. Elon Musk contributed to the heated rhetoric by stating, “Violence is coming to you,” and urged people to “fight back or you die.” UK politicians were alarmed and outraged by this dangerous rhetoric from Musk, which only exacerbated the rioting and anti-immigrant sentiment. This is why Musk faced threats of heavy fines. Professor Turley fails to mention this crucial context. In the UK and EU, inciting violence and using inflammatory rhetoric to provoke further violence and encourage attacks on others is a violation of X’s terms of service. It was a failure of X to self-regulate. Musk often carelessly exacerbates already sensitive situations with inflammatory rhetoric.
Ironically, here in the US, conservatives are now calling for the firing or cancellation of anyone who criticizes or mocks Charlie Kirk’s death. Some individuals have been fired merely for using Kirk’s own words, while others have lost their jobs for far more benign comments. Conservatives and MAGA supporters have been demanding punishment for anyone who celebrates or speaks negatively about Charlie Kirk on social media. This is an example of free speech.
In Texas, teachers are facing calls to be fired for comments made on social media about Charlie Kirk outside of their work hours. These calls are coming from individuals outraged by derogatory comments regarding the deceased right-wing debater and influencer. This is still protected free speech. The irony is that when right-wing individuals made false claims about a Muslim immigrant being the attacker in the UK, conservative pundits and commentators like Professor Turley loudly condemned the UK for punishing Musk and right-wing posters for their rhetoric. Now they support government or organizational actions against those expressing undesirable views about Charlie Kirk’s death and his true character.
Professor Turley, like many on the right, is applying a double standard. Hypocrisy seems to be his forte when it comes to free speech standards.
Jezzzz talk about all over the board… Take a break george
Get lost you cretin.
“X has not been performing well since Musk took over. [. . .] They have also been losing subscribers and advertisers . . .”
You lie with such facility.
X’s value today is the same as what Musk paid for it — about $44b. This year, global ad sales are up some 16%.
Sam
Besides george is talking about UK use. I really don’t think Muck cares.
Oh just shut up. Go away you…
“X’s value today is the same as what Musk paid for it — about $44b. This year, global ad sales are up some 16%.”
No it’s not. It’s value is way less than the $44 billion he paid for.
Gobal sales ads have been stagnant. Musk is using the merger with AiX to add to it’s value. X by itelf has lost value since he bought it. It’s barely breakin even. Look it up. It’s all there on the interwebs.
“Gobal sales ads have been stagnant. Musk is using the merger with AiX to add to it’s value. X by itelf has lost value since he bought it. It’s barely breakin even. Look it up. It’s all there on the interwebs.”
You’re absolutely right, it’s all over the “interwebs.” And they all say that you’re an idiot who don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. 🤦♂️
“X Ad Revenue Forecast 2025 (Ad Spend on the Platform Will Grow for the First Time Post Musk Acquisition) – eMarketer
I was going to include other articles mentioning the increase of global ad sales but removed them as they all pointed to the same article I posted. But that still doesn’t change the fact you’re wrong and can’t or refuse to admit that you’re wrong. It is the elitist in you that can’t admit you’re wrong. Because in admitting so, it will bring about the destruction of your world-view and you simply can’t handle that.
Even if this turns out to be a false hope, we’ll at least be able to see JT’s photographs of his travels. Maybe we’ll even see a picture of his dog.
One way for Turley to get rid of the riffraff on this blog, is to setup on facebook. Then we all can see who the riffraff is, the dregs of social media, up close and personal. I’d bet the comments would drop to near zero.
I absolutely love that idea. And as such, I second that motion. 👍
Facebook is where the Olds go to get dosed, Turls.
Meanwhile magat world looks poised to break out in their version of an east coast/west coast rap battle. And trump is using it as a way to crackdown on an unnamed left. The last full time black op Ed writer at the Washington post gets fired for directly quoting Kirk and a colleague of yours at fox says on air it’s time to kill homeless people and still has a job…
But yeah. Facebook.
Um… “And trump is using it as a way to crackdown on an unnamed left. ..” Whatabout the Biden regime?
Ha!…you actually used “what about” in your whataboutism.
Pretty good huh?
Ano
quoting Kirk and a colleague of yours at fox says on air it’s time to kill homeless people and still has a job…
.. It was a Fox news person who said that. He came back and said it was wrong.
CNN lies all the time and no-one gets canned.
Fox talk show personality. Kilmeade.
Yep.. big mistake. He owed up to it.
Mistake, you are a mistake. Get lost.
Still crying george.
Care to talk about the 747-800 fuel load again.
The dumbest AH of all just showed up folks.
>> The last full time black op Ed writer at the Washington post gets fired for directly quoting Kirk <<
She did NOT directly quote Kirk. She put words in his mouth that were never uttered, then falsely depicted them as a direct quote. Just as you did.
While I appreciate your need to try and sanitize Kirk’s quotes, she quoted him directly. Word for word.
Then you can link us to the quote and her characterization of it.
Better yet, with a simple search you can see tape of him saying it. I’m not your secretary.
Even funnier than your general cluelessness is the fact you think a writer grounded in journalistic principle would straight up fabricate a quote on social media. Just because the outlets you keep up with do it doesn’t mean others do.
You are a liar. She used quotation marks around words Kirk did not speak or write. She is a liar.
She was fired because she made up a quote. If you think WaPoo is going to fire a black person without cause – without giving them every benefit of doubt – then you are not only a liar, but a crank who lacks common sense.
She quoted him directly, word for word. He even said what he said on tape.
You are a liar.
Correction: Her purported termination letter is now public. I was wrong about the reason for her termination. The letter does not specifically reference a false quote as a reason for her termination.
https://x.com/yashar/status/1967755385021808729
She was fired because the POST wanted her gone. They used her quoting Kirk as the reason.
Nope
Turley still plugging his books. Sure wish he would get serious about writing instead of pushing books in every article.
Jealous….
Arsehole has just entered the blog.
Sorry, Meta has not yet apologized. And “free speech” is not their worst offenses! They routinely violated the privacy of their users. And not just users, but others too. In fact, there’s a class action lawsuit in the final stages of being settled, over privacy violations for over a decade.
Can you expand on that “routinely violated the privacy…”.
re: “Can you expand on that “routinely violated the privacy…”.”
Just one of a myriad of pages on the subject that anyone with even the most rudimentary web search skills should easily be able to find:
In re: Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation
https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/chhabria-vince-vc/in-re-facebook-inc-consumer-privacy-user-profile-litigation/
“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. And there is no place for it in our society especially after what happened to Charlie.” AG Pam Bondi said this yesterday during a Katie Miller podcast interview. (Bondi said it at 13:30 in the video)
Then Bondi said they (DOJ) will “absolutely target and go after any groups or anyone using hate speech, and that’s across the aisle.”
Say what again, Attorney General? What is going on? We do not want to live in a country where the government targets us for “hate speech.” Something is very wrong with what Bondi said. And the interviewer who asked about targeting groups using hate speech is none other that White House official, Stephen Miller’s wife. Interesting.
Paging Professor Turley. Pam Bondi needs a word of advice. Stat.
https://rumble.com/v6z09ja-episode-6-attorney-general-pam-bondi-the-katie-miller-podcast.html?e9s=rel_v2_ep
One mans hate speech is another mans free speech. We see a lot of that here.
Meta, Elon Musk, President Trump. I’d add Charlie Kirk and Adam Smith. Charlie because of his method of exercising free speech. The Invisible Hand because we are the most desirable single market on the planet. If all those forces move in the same direction, I can’t help but think of Teddy Roosevelt. Speak softly and carry a big stick. President Trump maybe not so softly.
“Hate speech” is a meaningless phrase. Don’t we “hate” injustice or even rudeness? This phrase is an excuse to censor views we don’t like.
“an excuse to censor views we don’t like.”
Exactly. Which is why Bondi is *way* out of line on this. In fact, even if her statement is made solely as a bluff, such language, coming from the US AG, could easily be characterized as an attempt to intimidate, and its constitutionality could be subject to question.
Zuckerberg wouldn’t know or care about morality even if it bit him.
What always struck me as unbelievable are the users stats social media (BTW, there is nothing social about social media) claim.
What I learned was the applicability of the age old rule of 80/20 rule, its quite valid for SM, 20% of users generate 80% of the engagements. The other 80% are users who rareley or occasionally engage, yet Meta twists the stats to claims billions of (daily) users. A claim that is an outright lie.
I have no idea about the progress Meta towards free speech. My account was terminated recent and my my 5,000 friends vaporized
5,000 “friends” you say? I suppose you knew each personally? How can you call strangers friends? Just because a stranger “likes” you doesn’t make for a friend. Totally fing superficial people.
*. General comment
It’s all hyper-emotionalism. Much of it on the left is HPD (histrionic personality disorder).
I refuse to listen to anything appealing to my emotions at this point. Media with its breathless anxiety ridden accounts of events are nothing but emotional abuse.
If it can’t be discussed or reported rationally then I don’t listen. That INCLUDES religions. Don’t appeal to my emotions with God loves you, please. Just tell me it’s rational that God created a good world for good people. Don’t threaten me with the fear of hell either. Just rationally tell me no one wants their property stolen and thieves are isolated.
I read the comments with words like disgusting and moron and it causes a repellant reaction. Anti-semitism is wrong for multiple, rational reasons. The NY Times prints emotionally repellant articles.
That’s all.
While you do have a point (and it’s something that I agree with you on), would it had been better if Miami Warrior had said “Facebook friends” instead?
“How can you call strangers friends? ”
Hey, intellectually disabled commenter – “friend” is the term that FB has assigned to an artificial construct connecting multiple users. It has nothing at all to do with the proper dictionary definition of the term “friend”. Nevertheless, FB does not afford its users the ability to rename that relationship. Try evaluating context, if your sub-70 IQ is capable of supporting such an effort.