Below is my column in the Hill on how some on the American left have learned how to hate. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones is actually leading in the polls after admitting that he wanted to see a political opponent and his children killed. It appears that many Democratic voters have now embraced the rage as leaders ratchet up violent rhetoric. Those who once demanded the criminalization of hate speech appear to relish it.
Here is the column:
In Shakespeare’s Richard III, Queen Elizabeth — whose husband King Edward IV was overthrown and her twins taken to the Tower — asks the older Queen Margaret (widow of the murdered King Henry VI) to “teach me how to curse mine enemies.” The Queen responds that it is easy: “Think that thy babes were sweeter than they were, And he that slew them fouler than he is.”
The lesson: The key to hate is to decouple it entirely from reason and reality. Only then can you hate completely without restraint or regret.
It seems that the left has learned how to hate. Hateful speech is in vogue as Democratic leaders ramp up violent rhetoric and political violence rises. The key is to get voters to hate your opponent so much that they forget how much they dislike you.
The irony is crushing. For years, liberals have sought to criminalize hate speech while expanding the range of viewpoints considered to fall within this category. Democratic leaders, from senators to former presidential candidates, have falsely claimed that hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
In “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about rage and the uncomfortable fact: “What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility.” Rage is addictive, and it is contagious.
This week, Bravo star and liberal podcast host Jennifer Welch praised footage of a “No Kings” protester celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, holding her up as an example for all liberals.
In the clip, the elderly woman said, “Charlie Kirk is horrible. Yes. I’m glad he’s not here.” When pressed if she was actually happy that the husband and father of two had been murdered, the woman said “Yes…because he was horrible on the campuses. Horrible person.”
After playing the clip, Welch laughed with joy and declared, “So listen up, Democratic establishment. You can either jump on board with this s—, or we’re coming after you in the same way that we come after MAGA. Period.”
Celebrities like Jamie Lee Curtis certainly got that message. The actress was facing a social and professional meltdown after openly mourning Kirk’s death in a podcast interview. “I disagreed with him on almost every point I ever heard him say,” she said. “But I believe he was a man of faith, and I hope in that moment when he died, that he felt connected to his faith, even though his ideas were abhorrent to me.”
It appeared to be a moment of weakness that briefly overrode wokeness. Curtis quickly found herself persona non grata in Hollywood, as an angry liberal mob began to circle her. Curtis quickly saw the light and effectively retracted her fleeting expression of humanity, claiming it had been “mistranslated.” It is said that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. But that does not apply if you then gouge out your own eye. Now fully and comfortably blinded by her own hand, Curtis is back as a member of good standing in Hollywood.
Internationally, the left has pushed for criminalizing the speech of those with opposing views as hateful and harmful. UNESCO works off a definition of hate speech as including “pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender or other identity factor.” This includes “scapegoating, stereotyping, stigmatization and the use of derogatory language” based on any “identity factor.”
Countries are also “required to prohibit” speech tied to “conspiracy theories, disinformation and denial and distortion of historical events.”
In the past, some leftists have included political criticism or parodies of their leaders as hate speech. For example, when a rodeo clown, Tuffy Gessling, donned a President Barack Obama mask at the Missouri State Fair as part of a skit years ago, the response was calls for his arrest. The President of the Missouri chapter of the NAACP, Mary Radliff, insisted that it constituted criminal hate speech.
But things have changed. The left has now discovered the thrill of uninhibited hate.
Recently, in Chicago, elementary school teacher Lucy Martinez was shown on video reacting to an image of Kirk by mockingly making a gesture akin to being shot in the neck, mimicking how Kirk had been assassinated.
Another educator, Wilbur Wright College Adult Education Manager Moises Bernal, screamed to a crowd that “ICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out.” Bernal told the crowd, “You gotta grab a gun!” and “We gotta turn around the guns on this fascist system!”
In academia, hateful speech has long been a way to establish one’s bona fides as a faculty member. By attacking and excluding others, you reaffirm your own protected status.
Faculty have thrilled their colleagues and students by talking about “detonating white people,” abolishing white people, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, and supporting the murder of conservative protesters.
Even school board members have referred to taking faculty “to the slaughterhouse” for questioning diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
Last week, Democratic strategist James Carville went on a hate-filled rant, to the delight of his podcast audience. He declared that anyone supporting Trump and the Republicans will be treated like collaborators in World War II who were publicly abused and paraded by mobs.
“You know what we do with collaborators?” he said. “I think these corporations [funding White House renovations] — my fantasy dream is that this nightmare ends in 2029 and I think we ought to have radical things. I think they all ought to have their heads shaven, they should be put in orange pajamas and they should be marched down Pennsylvania Avenue and the public should be invited to spit on them.”
Carville later repeated the call that “The universities, the corporations, the law firms, all of these collaborators should be shaved, pajamaed and spit on.”
For years, Democratic leaders have given their base the license for such blind rage by calling Republicans “Nazis” and claiming that democracy will die unless their opponents are stopped.
The effect has been transformative across the party. In the current race for Virginia Attorney General, Democratic nominee Jay Jones admitted to sending text messages expressing the desire to kill a political opponent, “piss on the grave” of a dead Republican, and kill his children, whom he dismissed as “little fascists,” in their mother’s arms.
There was a time when such a candidate would be denounced by those on the ticket from his party and made a nonentity in politics. Instead, the Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Abigail Spanberger (who had previously told her supporters to “Let your rage fuel you”), has refused to withdraw her endorsement. Moreover, the race remains close, with most Democratic voters still planning to cast their ballots for him.
It is a lesson many hope will take hold in the midterm elections. Like Queen Elizabeth, these voters have overcome all inhibitions and can now teach others “how to curse.”
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.”
Wide-eyed Leftists can’t see their own no-so-distant future. But ‘normies’ can.
“Those who once demanded the criminalization of hate speech appear to relish it.”
Q. Where did the latest and most serious assault on free-speech begin?
A. The Biden administration threatened and controlled Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter [Topics: COVID, masks, injections, Ivermectin, 2020-election and voting fraud, J-6 evidence of govt.-fomenting, etc.] if these entities did not censor (utterly remove!) free and open access to information; they also used mainstream media and Google to quash counter-views and information that the Biden-pontificate pronounced to be “misinformation.” They know, and WE know, that these blatant acts to censor the American citizen were proven to have happened, and now, they either ignore it or love it.
The threatening and murderous slander of Jay Jones is just the next step in their demand for truly fascist one-party control. Jones’ mentally-ill and immoral tirade is applauded and rewarded. There is no better evidence for the fact that we are dealing with REPROBATES.
It is just a redress of grievances.
Should a redress of any grievances have been considered hate speech?
Were the peasants justified in hating the French aristocrats?
Were the colonists justified in hating the British Redcoats?
They are just giving you a chance to change your ways before the violence happens.
The ball is in your court, if you want to avert violence.
Remember, in the end the Revolutionaries kill their own. Bring on the Guillotine. Couldn’t happen too soon.
Nope, the ball is in your court, as the referee has already ruled that such perceived “grievances” have long been settled/concluded years and centuries ago. Peasants? Colonists?
A “redress of grievances??????????????????????????????”
In that sense, your verb “REdress” (prefix “re” meaning back, again) is erroneously but aptly similar to “REapply” or “REdo” or “REplay,” or “REvisit.”
Unable to come up with NEW grievances of merit, Perhaps you should “REsign” to giving up attempts to REcycle old, worn out “grievances.” Are you going to “REnew” violence as your answer?
YOU are a prime example of everything that is dangerous and wrong, right now. And don’t think, for one second, that your hidden THREAT isn’t recognized!
Yes, we have a means within the rule of law for the actual redress of grevances – that is our system of tort law.
That requires that you prove that you were ACTUALLY harmed by ACTS by the person you claim harmed you.
That is the remedy for a REAL claim.
You are free to rant as you please.
Were the french peasants justified in hating the french aristocracy ? NO. Like it or not the problems of French peasants were not for the most part caused by the aristocracy, that does not mean that pre-french revolution France was a great place to be a peasant – though it was better than much of the world.
People often look to blame others for their misfortunes that is RARELY true and it is even more rare that it is true that regardless of the cause the solution lies with punishing those you blame.
“Were the colonists justified in hating the British Redcoats?”
Wrong question. American colonists expected the british govenrment to treat them in the same way as it treated similarly situated briton in England and it failed to do so.
The american revoltuion was NOT the consequence of hatred. It was deeply disturbing for many many of our founders to abandon their identity as british.
“They are just giving you a chance to change your ways before the violence happens.
The ball is in your court, if you want to avert violence.”
False – Your grevances RARELY justify violence – and this misunderstanding is why the french revolutions and ALL left revolutions EVER have failed, and why the american revolution did not.
READ the declaration of independence. It is NOT merely a list of grevances. It is a legal moral and ethical argument for When violence is actually justified as a response to grievances.
There is a very real danger that the bad conduct of the left WILL rise to the level required to justify actual violence.
But that is rare. The bad conduct of those on the left does deprive people of their actual natural rights – that alone is not sufficient – again read the declaration of independence.
I have heard of no grevance from the left that constitutes a legitimate claim of being deprived of anything that is a natural right.
The left failing to get its way politically – especially when getting your way means infringing on the natural rights of other is not ever a justification for violence.
John Say,
Great comment!
A few days ago, on the news Internet, I saw a short video clip of a Black woman being arrested. She was standing perfectly straight up, although struggling to resist two policemen standing behind her, attempting to handcuff her.
She was screaming, “I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe!
This, my friends, is what media/social media and mass communications technology has done to us.
It triggers us with manipulated emotion, perception,–and rage, without context or knowledge of factual “omissions.”
It’s a distortion of reality, like Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, where shadows cast on a cave wall from a fire behind the lifelong cave inhabitants staring at the wall, are interpreted and deemed to be real creatures. Likewise, our knowledge and understanding of national or world events are simply distorted reflections of what we have learned from media,- upon which we rely. And media knows how to play that game.
Already the media is calculatingly preparing us for 2026 elections, –even predicting tomorrow’s elections as “bell weathers” for 2026–(having held our hands and led us down the distorted but desired path all along). The rug underneath us being slowly, almost imperceptibly, moved, inch by inch, toward the stairwell….
No, we don’t have a major problem with illegal voter fraud. Yes, we have a major problem with calculated-but essentially legal- media manipulation of emotion, perception, and fact, -followed by manipulation of self-image through ridicule and condescension. This was quintessentially captured by Professor Turley’s examples, including James Carville: “He [Carville] declared that anyone supporting Trump and the Republicans will be treated like collaborators in World War II who were publicly abused and paraded by mobs.” –Or Jennifer Welch’s warning: “So listen up, Democratic establishment. You can either jump on board with this s—, or we’re coming after you in the same way that we come after MAGA. Period.”
The Left, and Media, are not about to let those smoldering coals go cold over the winter.
apologies for the lengthy post.
A few days ago I saw a woman at food pantry. She was over weight, probably by 100lb.
After getting her food she loaded it in a Lexus GX 550.
Perhaps she needs to trade it in for a Lettuce GX-550?
Lin,
Great comment. I would call MSM not as media but as marketing for the DNC. I saw and knew this and cut the cord back in 2008. One can easily scroll past the non-sense and still get the news. Independent media, like The Free Press, are excellent alternatives to the MSM marketing. I think that is why we are seeing so much desperation from the left, the DNC and MSM (but I repeat myself) as they are losing their audience, as evidence by viewership. Their marketing and narrative are losing. They are losing.
Hello there Upstate Farmer: I would not have known of “The Free Press” had it not been for you mentioning it at least a year ago. I was confused when you first cited it, as I knew the San Diego Free Press, Los Angeles Free Press, Chicago Free Press, Detroit Free Press, etc., had all been “alternative” and liberal publications.
Already the media is calculatingly preparing us for 2026 elections, –even predicting tomorrow’s elections as “bell weathers” for 2026
Very convenient for the legacy media that these alleged bell weathers are statewide elections in deep blue states, mayoral races in deep-blue cities, or judicial retention elections that virtually always draw a “yes” majority regardless of party.
Hello NotSoOld: Absolutely true, and to my point: that Media will use these elections to create the impression of the Democratic Party as a rising Phoenix. (This combined with the redundant focus on the “popularity” of NY’s Mamdani (sp.?), Trump improperly taking out Venezuelan drug cartels (“without evidence,” even though Congressman Crenshaw told CBS’s Margaret Brennan that congressional members had privately seen the evidence), protests against those bad ICE agents, Trump’s ball room expenditure (falsely reported ad nauseam as taxpayer expense, until media was caught and corrected itself days later- when few would read or hear it), Trump “reversed again in court” (by another liberal-appointed judge) and Trump denying SNAP food benefits to “over 42 million” (without questioning how 42 million would/could even be on SNAP to start out with?)
Lin – remember Carmela beat Trump by approximately six percentage points in both NJ and VA. So Dem victories in those two stages will have to be by even wider margins for the media to validly say anything negative on Trump’s effect.
It’s “bellwether”, referring to the lead sheep of a flock, a word often used in place of “indicator” or “predictor” of some trend or event.
Yes, and thank you.
I seldom read what comes out of my rapid fingertips.
Postscript to my comment: The lead sheep often has a bell-collar around its neck.
Lin the election issues are a reflection fo the larger conflict over the rule of law.
If there is no election fraud or risk of Fraud then why do we bother to have election laws at all ?
If the laws governing an election are not followed – that is election fraud and it is a problem.
If the courts will not enforce election laws – that severely undermines the rule of law and our trust in govenrment.
Throughout the world elected leaders have the support – often grudging of their oponents and those who voted against them BECAUSE nearly everyone can trust the election results. If 10% of the people do not trust the results of the election – that is a problem that MUST be resolved.
The declaration of independence justifies violence against the established government when that government has lost the trust of the people.
The more people do not trust an election – the less legitimate the govenrment is and the higher the odds of violence.
With respect to our election laws we must follow them or change them there is no ignore them option.
Hello John Say:
?????
My comment, “No, we don’t have a major problem with illegal voter fraud,” precisely reflects the effectiveness and tenacity of an enforced rule of law, i.e. election law. Why did you conclude that I was against election law(s)?
Rather, what I was saying is that “The Left and Media” are too clever to get caught illegally engaging in vote or voter fraud, so the larger danger is the influence on voter sentiment by manipulation of emotions and perceptions caused by a slanted, end-justifies-all-means media distortion.
JT says “We’re Coming After You”. Just a little tweak of words “ We’re Gonna Getcha”
The leftist trolls in this comment section refuse to engage with the points made by Professor Turley. Instead they seek to deflect by slaying straw men, suggesting the professor does not wish to “allow” certain speech (i.e., that it should be legally prohibited), or certain subjective emotions. The professor has never said anything remotely like that. But our not-so-friendly neighborhood trolls refuse to engage with Turley’s actual criticism, which is the mainstreaming within one major political party in America of violent rhetoric, and how harmful that is to civility in society. As I’ve said before, our particular curse as conservatives is not the lack of worthy allies – we have plenty of those – it is the lack of worthy and honorable adversaries.
There is nothing to engage because the points shouldn’t be getting made in the first place.
The Supreme Court would toss out any case built around these points with a “Seriously? WTF are you doing?”
It should be a settled issue that people have a right to express their emotions.
End of discussion.
oldman
You are absolutely correct as usual.
All these leftist trolls are antisemites.
They are everywhere you look these days. They try to hide their antisemitism, but like you, we all recognize them when they emerge from their lairs.
So then you agree with oldman’s claim that leftist trolls refuse to engage with the actual topic of the articles, as you just demonstrated and failed to provide a counter-example. You seem to be a walking, talking example of what he was saying.
Typial left wing nut – arguing about how to argue.
OMFK need not provide evidence to support his argument – it is RIGHT HERE accross this blog in front of all of our faces.
Those of you on the left are Batschff crazy and engage in STUPID arguments all the time.
There was not Trump/Russia collusion in 2016.
The Hunter Biden laptop is real.
Joe Biden’s competence is not.
Almost nothing govenrment experts told us about covid was true.
Virtually every so called right wing conspiracy theory has proven true.
Virtually nothing the left has claimed to be true has proved so.
You have no credibility – about ANYTHING – you did that to yourself.
The fact that only left wing nuts continue to believe you – and even then in slowly declining numbers is your own fault.
Conversely I am hard pressed to think of ANY issue of substance OMFK has erred on.
In the real world people who have been found to be liars – increasingly must prove every claim they make.
While those with a long reputation for truthfulness have earned credibility and owe fools like you nothing by way of proof.
The burden of proof is highest on known liars and lowest on those with an earned reuptation for truth.
John Say – I appreciate it. BTW, I believe the anonymous commenter you responded to was also supporting me, pointing out that the leftist troll did exactly what I claimed they do and did not provide any example to counter me.
No one said anything about antisemites. Not the good professor. Not OldManFromKS. Not I. You are the one whom brought it up. What the good professor and others have said is the rage rhetoric feeds into hate. Hate then allows them to decouple from reason and reality. This kind of hate could give them justification to commit actual acts of real violence against those who they hate “without restraint or regret.”
OldManFromKS,
Well said. No one is saying the leftists cannot express their feeling or emotions. That is a 1stA right. By all means, please do. What we and the good professor are saying is what started out as simple thoughts or feelings like, “I dont like Trump” has grotesquely grown into “IHATETRUMP!TRUMPSUPPORTERS!TRUMPTRUMPSUPPORTERSAREEVILNAZIS!” And the like. Okay. 1stA right. No problem. Just do not be surprised if the rest of us look at you like the crazy homeless guy talking to himself in the third person as he paces at a street corner. And we put distance between us and you. The good professor is noting,
“The key to hate is to decouple it entirely from reason and reality. Only then can you hate completely without restraint or regret.”
It appears some people are getting to the point where they are decoupled from reason and reality. As a mass psychosis, this could spiral out of control into a very dangerous situation. While all us sand and normal people hope it does not, seems some are ready and willing to “or we’re coming after you in the same way that we come after MAGA. Period.”
UF – the reason that hate must be decoupled from reality is there are only a few legitimate justifications for hatred.
But a few is NOT none.
There is nothing wrong with hating evil – but you had better be right about what is evil when you choose to hate.
And regardless of your hatred you must remain grounded in reality and your actions must be justified independent of your hatred.
There are very few times when violence is justified – but not none.
Hatred tends to drive us to violence without the required justification.
Hate whatever you want – all you want.
But when you choose to ACT, your actions must be justified independent of your hatred.
How strange that lovers of free speech would prefer that people not say certain things.
Try re-reading what oldman posted.
_______________
Turley. Instead they seek to deflect by slaying straw men, suggesting the professor does not wish to “allow” certain speech (i.e., that it should be legally prohibited), or certain subjective emotions. The professor has never said anything remotely like that. But our not-so-friendly neighborhood trolls refuse to engage with Turley’s actual
….said the HYPOCRITE, pointing his finger, while his other fingers identified him. Strange, indeed.
I want those of you on the left to speak endlessly – so that everyone knows exactly who you are.
Turely have been doing a long running series – exposing the left for their vile speech and lawless actions.
That is how you deal with bad speech – you expose it for the vile nonsense that it is.
How strange that lovers of free speech would prefer that people not say certain things.
How is that strange? Everyone would prefer that certain things not be said. The freedom of speech doesn’t mean everything ought to be said; all it means is that when someone says something he shouldn’t have, we have no right to throw him in prison, or use force to shut him up. We must rely on persuasion, or ostracism, or disdain, and accept that if he persists in saying those things we’ll have to live with it.
You decry the Thought Police of Orwellianism, yet condemn emotions, which are related to thoughts.
Democrats Vow To Starve As Many Food Stamp Recipients As It Takes To Get Free Healthcare For Illegal Immigrants
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-vow-to-starve-as-many-food-stamp-recipients-as-it-takes-to-get-free-healthcare-for-illegal-immigrants
(“Free” = taxpayer-funded)
“Democrats Vow To Starve As Many Food Stamp Recipients As It Takes To Get…”
Democrats are like Hamas: Hamas Vow To Kill As Many of Their Own people As It Takes To Get…
You have a right to hate people who give you good reasons to hate them.
^ That has nothing to do with the topic of the article ^
Yes, it does.
Quote anything in the article above where professor Turley discusses whether people have a right to hate other people. You can’t. The topic is not about “rights” – the only thing the Left seems capable of discussing – and it is not even about emotional feelings such as hate. Rather, it is about whether the Left’s embrace of violent political rhetoric is a bad thing. Trolls like you are apparently too simple-minded to understand such a distinction, that is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80.
OldManFromKS,
The fact their fellow hate and rage leftists are putting on full display of their hate and rage, their addiction to their hate and rage, they are attempting to deflect desperately from these facts. You think they are ever going to acknowledge it is they who are the ones committing all these acts of violence?
MFK – I beg to differ While in so many ways ATS is full of schiff – this is not one.
Hatred is absolutely one of the topics of this article.
And implicitly what actions that hatred justifies.
The answer is that hatred has absolutely no effect at all on the initiation of force against others.
You can rail against those you hate.
You can fire them
You can refuse to do business with them.
But you can NOT initiate force against them.
You can not censor them.
You can not deprive them of their property, or liberty or life.
I have some problems with Turley’s “age of rage” arguments – they are logically the same as the arguments to ban firearms.
The problem is not hatred or hate speech today – though we are all free to judge others on what they say.
The problem is what people DO.
Conecting speech to violence is no different to connecting guns to violence.
There are people whose speech leads to violence
there are people who would not kill if they did not have access to a gun.
But the focus should not be on the speech or the gun – but the actual violence.
Does the hyperbollic hate speech of the left drive violence – likely.
But it is not the speech that is the issue it is the violence.
I have no problem with Turley pointing out the incredible hypocrisy on the left.
I agree that hate speech can lead to violence, but the connection is complex and does not justify limiting speech.
HATE????????????
I might not like people who drive five under the speed limit in the passing lane on a highway, but I am not going to shoot them as I pass by or if I were to witness them getting into a accident, celebrate it.
Absolutely you do.
But that does not alter one iota the justification requirements for violence or the use of Force aka govenrment.
We care when those on the left say they hate someone – because the left tends to justify the use of force with their hatred – depriving those they hate of their property, their freedom, even their lives.
The same is incredibly rarely true of the right.
These people are sick and twisted people. Everyone has the right to speak their mind, even if and maybe even especially, if we don’t agree with what they are saying. That is what free speech is all about. Free speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. It’s when that speech turns into acts of violence when punishment will occur. VIOLENCE is NOT free speech and IS NOT protected.
Sort of like when MAGA extremists (incited by Trump) brought a real gallows to hang Mike Pence on January 6? Other MAGAs brought bear spray and zip ties to this peaceful First Amendment exercise.
I’ve been to legal First Amendment protests but never brought bear spray, zip ties or a functional gallows. Never stockpiled weapons in a nearby hotel like MAGA supporters did on January 6.
That type of legal free speech?
What weapons?
There were a handful of rifles that were brought from out of state, that were in a hotel room in Alexandria overnight and then in a car parked near the mall. They were NEVER brought to the protest itself, and never on capital grounds.
Who brought the gallows? Can you prove it was MAGA extremists?
The FBI investigation found no one brought zip ties to the protest. They were found to be the Capitol police zip ties.
You are reading too many comic books, either that or the Biden POILTBURO was eminently successful again in getting another TV-activist to believe in EVERYthing they say. What a good sheeple, you are.
I’ve been to legal First Amendment protests but never brought bear spray, zip ties or a functional gallows. Never stockpiled weapons in a nearby hotel like MAGA supporters did on January 6.
The Internet never forgets, son – although you post like you hope it does:
Secret Service agents wounded outside White House, car bombs feared; official says Trump evacuated to bunker
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-took-trump-to-underground-bunker-amid-george-floyd-protests
As you want to bring up extremists incited by those from the White House: Were you one of the Democrat Marxist revolutionaries at that Democrat “legal First Amendment protest” just weeks before January 6th, where there was an assault on the White House in an attempt to murder Trump and his family that went on for over a day?
Where the Democrat Street Criminals Of Antifa and Black Liars & Marxists brought actual weapons used in wars i.e. Molotov Cocktails, bear spray, lasers to blind law enforcement, etc. The real weapons they then used to wound over 50 Secret Service and Capitol Police in the fighting to repel their assault.
All while former Vice President Biden defended them by referring to those engaged in the assault on the White House as a courageous group of Americans and then Senator Harris telling Americans they will not stop, nor should they stop.
That’s what you Bolshevik-style Democrat revolutionaries call “legal free speech” just weeks before the later three hour riot of January 6th suddenly caused you to recognize what wasn’t legal First Amendment speech? All while deciding you can claim special powers to identify whoever is inciting such riots?
Without projection and lyin’ and denyin’ like a Biden, you’d have nothing. Which is why you lost the last election and are about to lose the next one.
You mean This gallows ?
https://cultural-anthro.transforms.svdcdn.com/production/content/ruddy-roye-trump22-1.jpg?w=1528&q=60&auto=format&fit=crop&dm=1617805432&s=9adcee22f9a06e6abef28f1471bf6898
It is funny how if you google the J6 gallows – you will get 100’s of scary pictures of the gallows but not a single one that accurately shows the gallows – not just the “this is art” sign, but the rickety nature of the gallows and the obvious fact that it is NOT even close to a “Real” gallows.
AS to the rest of your idiocy – yes, people traveled from accross the country to the capitol for J6 – and a TINY number of them brought their guns.
But NO ONE brought guns to the capital grounds or the mall.
No one used a gun – except Ofc Bird who murdered Alishi babbit.
You rant about zip ties and Bear Spray – how many people brought zip ties 1000 ? 100? 10? 1? in fact only a few were found and and the person that found them did not bring them. It is likely they were left lying arround by the CP.
Did anyone use Bear Spray ?
Did anyone bring lasers ? Frozen water bottles ? Fireworks ? Machetes ? Axes ? Molotov cocktails ?
Any of the things that are routine at pretty much any “peaceful protest” by the left anywhere.
If J6 is your evidence of some parity between right and left – YOU LOSE.
If you do not like ICE arrests – CHANGE THE LAW, and you do that AT CONGRESS.
The J6 protestors went to exactly the right place to present grevances about a stolen election.
They assembled, they spoke, they pettitioned govenrment – at the pre-eminent forumn for free speech int he world.
While left wing nuts are trying to assassinate ICE agents. interfering with them doing their job.
If you do not like what ICE is doing GO TO THE CAPITOL – exactly like J6 protestors.
Ever wonder why leftists have to go back to J6 every time? Conservatives just have to go back to last weekend.
Sort of like when MAGA extremists (incited by Trump) brought a real gallows to hang Mike Pence on January 6?
No, they didn’t. There was no real gallows; the people who put up the STAGE PROP gallows were not Trump supporters, let alone “MAGA extremists”; and nobody ever had any intention of hanging Pence, nor expressed any such intention. Pence was never in any danger whatsoever (though he couldn’t have known it at the time, and prudently followed his security team’s orders).
Pepper spray (or “bear spray” if you prefer) is a self-defense weapon. People going into a crime-ridden city are well advised to have it with them. Likewise zip ties may be useful if one is expecting a brawl may develop. Nor is there anything wrong with having weapons in reserve IN CASE there is a legitimate battle in which they will be needed. No one knew how the Democrats would respond to the peaceful protest, and there was always a possibility that “second amendment solutions” would be called for. That, after all, is what the second amendment is for! Or do you think it’s there for some other purpose, such as hunting?
Turley missed this one.
We have a dictator-wanna be with a political party of “Yes-Men” and “Yes-Women” that follow like lemmings – even at the local and state government level.
Voters don’t like Jones but he’s the lesser of all the evils. They are voting against dictatorship.
In Left-speak, “dictatorship” means dismantling the censorship-industrial complex and easing government-imposed regulations.
Ano
They are voting against dictatorship.
___________________
Yep we voted biden out.
Yes hate speech is allowed in my beloved First amendment – but there is accountability. In the very next section we have freedom of the press. In 2025, we are the press.
We can and should post and publish who says and does what. We can spread what they say and do as Turley does here, make it so ubiquitous that even the complicit, hateful corporate media can’t shield the voters from knowing.
We are not “the press”. Nobody is “the press”. The freedom of the press is not a separate freedom from that of speech, and it is no more a freedom of some entity called “the press” than the freedom of speech is a freedom of someone called “speech”. Both freedoms belong to every human being in the world, and they are respectively the freedom to say what you like, and to publish it. It’s exactly like the difference between slander and libel, both of which come under the caption of “defamation”. So the freedom of speech and of the press come under the caption of “freedom of expression”, and are exactly parallel to each other.
This is a great distraction from releasing the Epstein Files, reducing the national debt and consumer price inflation. Or that Americans pay the most for healthcare but receive far less than other nations.
If I were a Republican I’d be focusing on other things also to distract from the more important issues.
Look over here, not at the real issues!
So the Dems saying they want their opponents’ children to die, to put two bullets into the head of their opponents, and getting Nazi tattoos on their chests – those Dems are just trying to distract from the fact that in four year “Joe Biden” somehow just forgot to harm Trump with the Epstein files? Could be.
Ano
This is a great distraction from releasing the Epstein Files,
______________________
You mean the files biden had and the judges who keep blocking them..
DustOff,
Well said. They have had the files for over ten years. If there was anything incriminating about Trump, they would of used it. But no. Instead, the Clinton campaign paid to have the Steel Dossier make up Russiagate. Why bother with that if they really had something on Trump?
This is a great distraction from releasing the Epstein Files… If I were a Republican I’d be focusing on other things also to distract from the more important issues.
If you were a Republican, instead of a Marxist Democrat, you’d actually be asking why Democrat apparatchiks here like to pretend they believe there’s something politically useful to them in those files – other than serving as a distraction.
Something hidden in those files that in twelve years and three elections, neither Obama (self-certified as The Smartest Guy In The Room) nor Biden’s puppeteers could find to “leak” to destroy Trump’s presidential election campaign.
Oh… add this to what you would think if you were a Republican:
Will Democrats and their Marxist apparatchiks performing their political theater here ever admit that their Obamacare began as, and still is, a pack of failed Marxist lies from beginning to end?
Failed Marxist promises and lies which has never for one moment reduced costs or efficiency of health care and insurance since it destroyed the previous private health care system?
And then, if you were a Republican, you would answer your own question: “Of course not; Democrats will never admit that, neither their politicians nor their desperately deflecting Marxist apparatchiks here on Professor Turley’s blog.”
Hard Times Come Again No More will soon be the New York City Anthem. Bad times are going to get worse, it looks like. Schadenfreude, anyone?
It’s inevitable that the left’s level of insane hatred turns on itself, as that is how hatred works; they seem to have summoned a demon they thought they could control to simply do their bidding. What did they think would happen after generationally inculcating this and then putting those people in charge?
The question is, how much damage will be done in the meantime? It could be quite extensive. All sane people need to reject it all, unequivocally, right now.
It is subjective. It was wrong to hate Goebbels and Hitler while the Nazis were still in power.
^ Paid DNC troll. Ignore. ^
Why does the free speech advocate seem more like the emotion police?
What I see in you Anonymous is a person who will not condemn a man who says he dreams of shooting the children of his political opponent so he can watch them die in their mothers’ arms.
The same kind of statements were made by a leader of Germany concerning the Jews.
Your refusal to see the similarities tells us all we need to know about you.
Your refusal to know and understand that offensive speech needs the most protection tells me that you and many others on this alleged free speech blog have no grasp of what free speech means. The ACLU has a better grasp.
ATS – where did TiT ever say that hate speech is not protected speech? Only in your fever imagination.
TiT never said anything about refusing to know and understand offensive speech is protected 1stA right. We all know the hate speech being put on display by the leftists is a 1stA right. What we are saying is this kind of hate and rage is addictive. It normalizes hate and rage. I think it is abhorrent to wish to see someone’s children shot and killed. Any sane and normal person would. The left, they think it is perfectly okay to do so. That is the difference the good professor and others are pointing out.
Anonymous, so the voiced emotion of a man who wants to shoot children is just alright with you.
There are many people who acted out their emotions and hurt other people who rightfully sit in a jail cell. If you lose your composure and hurt others the emotions that you exhibited should indeed be controlled by what you refer to as the “emotion police.”
You often speak of the lack of compassion by those with whom you disagree.
I ask, where is yours. There are those with mental problems who as part of their diagnosis are found to be devoid of any compassion for others. Along with this lack of compassion comes the rape of women and child molestation while in a controlling emotion state. So yes, emotional police.
I understand that you won’t understand.
Do you see the good professor, calling for the arrest of anyone expressing their 1stA rights? Any of us? Of course not. He and we are just pointing out the hate and rage that is consuming some leftists.
The Democrats should be careful. Machiavelli offered this advice to political leaders in his book The Prince. When making a decision to attack and take over a nation you should be wary of taking over a nation that where the populace has known freedom. You may be successful in your attempt but the remembrance of freedom will never be forgotten and will be passed on from generation to generation.
Those in the Democratic Party who dream of murdering the children of those who refuse to march in lockstep to their leadership should understand that their opposition knows how to shoot back and owns a lot more guns. The party of gun control has no problem with using a gun to kill the children of their opponents.
Talk about Rage! I present my new EBT Blues song:
I went down to the market
Without no E B T – heeeee!
Went down to the market
Din hab no E B T – heeeee!
Not having Truffle Butter
Meant the po-lice nabbing me!
Po oh me!
Yo de lady oh, de lady oh, de lay-deeee!