Below is my column on Fox.com on the Oxford University Press selecting “rage bait” as the word of the year. It is certainly fitting for our age of rage, but it is a term that has a more negative implication for the free speech community. It is often used to criticize social media sites allowing or favoring such postings. Rage bait may be the word of the year, but make no mistake about it: free speech remains the target.
Here is the column:
George Bernard Shaw famously observed that “England and America are two countries separated by the same language.” It appears, however, that this chasm has finally been overcome by the common dialect of rage. The new word of the year was announced this week by the Oxford University Press and it is tragically apt: “rage bait.”
First used in 2002, the new word is defined as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive, typically posted in order to increase traffic to or engagement with a particular web page or social media content.”
The choice is certainly apropos of what I called in my recent book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” Rage is a curious emotion. It is the ultimate release. It allows you to do things and say things that you would not otherwise do or say. That is why it is addictive and contagious.
Rage, however, can also be a license not just to rave but to regulate.
The key to rage is that it is entirely subjective and relative. If you agree with a speaker, it is righteous. If you disagree, it is dangerous.
That relativism was evident in Oxford’s own press release on the selection of the word. Casper Grathwohl, President of Oxford Languages, associated the term with “manipulation tactics we can be drawn into online.” He slammed “internet culture” for “hijacking and influencing our emotions.”
Grathwohl warned that it is an extension of what is called “rage-farming… to manipulate reactions and to build anger and engagement over time by seeding content with rage bait, particularly in the form of deliberate misinformation of conspiracy theory-based material.”
If you listen carefully, you can almost hear the “here, here” grunts of the British censors. Great Britain and other European countries have eviscerated free speech through criminalization and regulation for decades. The Internet is a particular obsession of the anti-free speech movement. The greatest single invention since the printing press, the Internet is a threat to countries and groups that want to control speech.
The new scourge is hidden “algorithms” that elevate certain postings. While liberals like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) have called for social media companies to use algorithms to encourage people to choose better books, the left accuses these companies of fueling divisions but creating forums for views that it considers “disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.”
The difficulty is distinguishing content-based bias in algorithms (which is rightfully condemned) from systems that simply elevate more popular posts. If social media is merely favoring more popular speech, the problem with critics is not with the bait but their own failure to attract nibbles from those surfing the web.
The fact is that these companies profit from traffic and favor posts that customers are most interested in reading. That drives activists to distraction because they believe their views are healthier and superior for citizens to discuss.
These are really calls for “enlightened algorithms” to favor truth, as defined by governments and supporting experts. That is not “hijacking” but liberating; it is not “rage bait” but reasoned debate. It is that easy.
Any disliked image or view can be deemed rage bait. The same week that Oxford was choosing rage bait, there was another story of how free speech is in a free fall in the United Kingdom.
Jon Richelieu-Booth told the Yorkshire Post that he was arrested for posting a picture on the networking site LinkedIn of himself holding a shotgun at a friend’s homestead in Florida. West Yorkshire Police allegedly warned him about the post and told him to be “careful” about what he says online and “how it makes people feel.” He was later arrested and spent months in the criminal justice system before the case was dropped.
It is an all-too-familiar story for those of us who have documented the decline of free speech in the UK. The British police have arrested people for silently praying in public and a man was convicted for “toxic ideologies,” literal thought crimes.
The Times of London reported that police are making around 12,000 arrests per year over online posts.
Rage rhetoric has been with us since humans first learned to speak. The danger of rage rhetoric is rarely the rhetoric itself. It is the use of rage rhetoric by the government and others to silence citizens.
It is easy to say that certain postings are “bait” for rage. It is more difficult to agree on what rage is. While the left will denounce statements of Donald Trump as rage bait, they rarely object to such rhetoric from Hillary Clinton or Jasmine Crockett. The same is often true on the right. Each side views its own postings as reasoned debate and the other side’s as rage bait.
No one is being “hijacked” on the Internet. They are choosing their sources, and many create siloes or echo chambers. It is a common feature of “an age of rage.”
Oxford is clearly correct in the selection of a word that captures the age. However, it also captures the use of rage to rationalize censorship by treating viewpoints as harmful lures for the unsuspecting, unwashed masses. That desire to regulate speech is also often driven by rage, but it is embraced as reason.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
great column Joe Canada
The idiots now administering the OED have evidently reached the nadir of the inability to distinguish a word from a phrase…
And here you are, enraged. They explain:
“We’re not rage baiting you by choosing two words—though that would be in keeping with the meaning of the term!
The Oxford Word of the Year can be a singular word or expression, which our lexicographers think of as a single unit of meaning.
Rage bait is a compound of the words rage, meaning a violent outburst of anger, and bait, an attractive morsel of food. Both terms are well-established in English and date back to Middle English times. Although a close parallel to the etymologically related clickbait, rage bait has a more specific focus on evoking anger, discord, and polarization.
The emergence of rage bait as a standalone term highlights both the flexibility of the English language, where two established words can be combined to give a more specific meaning in a particular context (in this case, online) and come together to create a term that resonates with the world we live in today.”
“Rage bait” is a compound noun that functions as a *single* unit. Thus it is *a* word, as in “swimming pool” and “common sense.”
My gut tells me that Oxford Press chose “rage bait” because it refers to a relatively new phenomenon that most people find is working against ability of free societies to govern themselves wisely in realtime. The backlog of unsolved problems (many gnarly and complex) keeps building. Borderless cybercrime, the declining rates of marriage and childbearing, micro-plastics contamination of food and beverage, insurmountable public debt, etc. Public confidence in being able to solve these is at a low ebb. Most now correlate this dysfunction to the rise of unmoderated social media, and the fracturing of mass media into disjoint echo chambers. There is a sense that when a complex problem devolves into the “us vs. them” phase of oversimplification, blame and recriminations, the odds of solving it go way down.
The key question is “What can we do about it?” How can we restore standards of civility and authenticity in the public square given the internet? The UK has made a big mistake with a prosecutorial approach. But wouldn’t it be just as big a mistake to surrender the public square to incivility, rancor, deceit, and intimidation in the name of “free speech”? There’s got to be some better middle ground. Railing against the UK approach doesn’t promote that conversation…it attempts to turn a complex societal challenge into a “for vs. against” proposition — you’re either for free-speech or you’re for state-censorship. That’s called a “dichotomization trap”, where emotions are charged up, sides are taken, and it has to be either A or B (both extremes) — nothing in between.
Is it possible that there are ways America might reclaim public standards of discourse (without violating anybody’s 1st Amendment rights)? That’s what is worth discussing.
Grathwohl warned that it is an extension of what is called “rage-farming… to manipulate reactions and to build anger and engagement over time by seeding content with rage bait, particularly in the form of deliberate misinformation of conspiracy theory-based material.”
—————-
aka propaganda. Only difference now is the hoi polloi are using it as well as the governments.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
What a thorough waste of time.
Here’s all anyone needs to know.
______________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….
_______________________________________________________________________
The natural and God-given rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789, should be compulsory and adopted globally.
People must adapt to freedom; freedom does not adapt to people; dictatorship does.
The only thing rage produces is counter-rage. It’s poisonous.
That said, moderation (it’s antidote) requires highly educated, mentally-well-balanced, socially-intelligent, open-minded mature adults to oversee public media with calibrated daily judgments about who and what deserves the public’s attention. These were the editors and radio/TV producers who helped our nation successfully navigate the Great Depression, World War II, criminal mafiosos, the Cold War, civil rights, environmental protection, pedophilia, drunk driving, unsafe products…and on and on.
50 years ago, our nation was highly productive at making widely-desired reforms. We did this all without the internet and social media.
Would anyone like to compare that burst of national willpower to now?
Pbinca, that is a good point.
Would anyone like to compare that burst of national willpower to now? Why don’t you do it.
pbinca: What you missed is the point that in prior days, those in media whom you refer to were morally and professionally guided by more exacting principles of fairness, objectivity, and opportunity for voicing other viewpoints, e.g., the Fairness Doctrine (from the 1940s through latter 1980s), “requiring broadcasters to present balanced coverage of controversial issues and to provide contrasting viewpoints. It aimed to ensure that audiences received diverse perspectives on public matters.” (for convenience, I cite Wikipedia).
Today’ weaseling around those principles is almost entirely orchestrated for political reasons. How often doe media focus on opposing viewpoints over Kate Middleton or parents abusing children?
There’s one cable TV channel that brings together opposing viewpoints side-by-side, while expecting truth and civility — News Nation. There are many podcasts with the same format.
The vast majority of media prefers alarmist sensationalism, and presenting viewpoints in an unchallenged manner.
Pbinca, I would note that the need to increase profits and stock holde demands were not a thing back in those days. Today it’s almost all about satisfying the stockholders and the need for higher profit margins and that often leads to News being more sensationalistic, biased, or catering to a specific demographic. Fox News pretty much set the tone for what we see today in mainstream media.
Fox News pretty much set the tone for what we see today in mainstream media.
Isn’t it odd that ol’ Mad King George X never thought for a moment about his favorites at CNN, MSNBC, PBS, who collectively assured him for over FOUR YEARS that the felonious Clinton-Obama “Trump Russia Dossier” was 100% verified intelligence agency evidence Trump conspired with Putin to steal the 2016 election. Even won Pulitzer prizes for selling those lies.
But that’s our Mad King George X: BBBBUUTTTTT…. MUH FOX!!!!!
“. . . the need to increase profits and stock holde [sic] demands were not a thing back in those days.”
You’re such a tool.
“Back in those days” the big three media companies were CBS, NBC, and ABC — all of which, since their inceptions, have been publicly traded companies.
Not even close. The Press has always been leaning on the scales. Anymore there are as many outlets leaning to the left as to the right and a lot more money spent on the right by billionaires to influence public opinion.
Some of it is political, but a lot more of it is manipulating the audience to sell them products. The consumers don’t want hour-long nuanced discussions that inevitably turn out to hide that powerful people will screw the consumers and get Americans killed to support the oil industry executives. If you want to know what is happening, look at the advertising. Are their ads for buying gold because cash is uncertain? Are there ads for dehydrated food that comes in 6 month supply quantities? Then you will see “news” pushing the idea that government is failing and the country will collapse saying things like “you won’t have a country anymore”
Compare to https://blogs.loc.gov/headlinesandheroes/2024/02/the-spanish-american-war-and-the-yellow-press/
Does anyone really care what the scions of the Oxford University Press think. They speak to a small number of English Speakers compared to English speakers worldwide. The language has left the British Isles and no longer resides just there. English is used throughout the world because of the United States and its power and influence not the remnants of the old empire.
They’re like the nation of Portugal trying to say how Portuguese is used in the world when Brazil contains multiples of primarily Portuguese speakers and has now assumed that role.
They are just a noisy appendage of the worldwide use of the language.
It is true that the numbers of the global “English-Literate” (Speaking/Reading/Writing) community is relatively smaller when compared to other Languages. But in terms of Publishing (Books) including translations, English is in the majority.
That said, “rage bait” is more associated to the fluid content media of the Internet. Couple this with instantaneous Translation (Google Translation) and Social Media Gardens, it has the chemistry to propel Social Movements. These Social Movements ‘Frame Alignment’ are incorporating “rage-farming” as a method of indoctrination into the Moment’s ideology. There is a potential for Dangerous use and there is also a potential for Philanthropic use.
Focusing on the Negative aspects of an issue, draws more Press, then focusing of the the Positive aspects of an issue. This is the Journalistic problem of the U.S. Main Stream Media. They continue to ruminate over and over again and again. that’s -Bad News-.
Some time ago we published the Books in Print Language distribution here> The Books in Print are clearly dominated by the English Language.
The advent of the Internet has turned the Reading Audience to Native Language Audiences, making way for Multilingual adaptations of Medium.
(and unfortunately the accompanying “rage bait” and “rage-farming”)
The English Language Global Distribution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population
GEB wrote:
“The language has left the British Isles and no longer resides just there. ”
Given two facts: the massive influx of immigrants for whom English is a second language (at best); the gross intentional distortions forced upon it by the leftists for the dual purposes of advancing woke ideology,and favoring the interests of those immigrants to the detriment of natives, one could question whether the language can properly be said to reside in the UK at all…
“the gross intentional distortions forced upon it by the leftists ”
Covefe, bigly.
“Does anyone really care what the scions of the Oxford University Press think.”
I do!
They created and continue to publish the OED — the world’s most authoritative and comprehensive English language dictionary.
See Simon Winchester’s _The Professor and the Madman_.
Those censors would be saying “hear, hear” rather than “here, here”, since it is short for “hear him”.
Hear, hear! Well said and spot on.
JT doesn’t seem to give a whit about the quality or productivity of discourse in the public square. Interestingly, when he established this Res Ipsa Loquitur website, he took the time to write a Civility Rule (still clickable at the top of page).
His illustrious career arguing cases in courtrooms came with a whole host of rules of speech conduct, all needed by the court to place strident adversaries side by side in a high-stakes-outcome situation — to ferret out the truth and inform a jury able to reach a just verdict. Rage talk is nowhere to be found in the courtroom — the freedom to rant is not allowed. And the Judge overseeing this highly regulated contest of speech and evidence is an agent of the state.
Is what the Judge doing in maintaining “order in the court” censorship?
All productive organizations have to find the sweet spot where creative divergent thinking can best flourish, while preventing tribalistic side-taking. This applies from the largest multinational down to the couple trying to make their marriage successful. Problems have to be solved, and the quality of discourse correlates 100% to good outcomes, especially when tackling gnarly, complex problems.
We can debate about how best for society at large to reign in “rage bait”. Government prosecution such as the UK is doing is the wrong approach (our Founders understood this). That doesn’t mean doing nothing about intemperate voices coming to dominate public discourse. Under our American traditional mores and customs, at least up until unmoderated social media blazed onto the scene, the community held the power to uphold standards of public conduct, including civility and decency. We find ourselves in a brave new world where that power has been stripped away by techies experimenting with national culture like it were their personal lab experiment.
There are things we can be doing not involving state censorship. We could repeal Section 230, and allow lawsuits as a means of reigning in public militancy, mischief, and misanthropy. This would put human beings back in the role of curators and moderators of what gets broadcasted out to the public. Those stoked with rage would have a harder time reaching one another, and those who are the incrementalist improvers would have an easier time.
Then, the “can do” America will break out of its political dysfunction, and start solving the complex problems of our time. That matters.
Pbinca, Professor Turley’s views seems more of a free speech absolutist even though he denies the label. His views certainly reflect that.
Turley is more of the pattern that All Speech is Equal, but Some Speech is More Equal Than Others.
He complains that liberal colleges don’t go out of their way to make “conservatives” feel “included” and “safe” while, at the same time, ignoring the conservative colleges have draconian rules that criminalize liberal norms.
In my new book, “The Right to Rage,” is a chapter called “Diode Politics” which discusses how ideas and rights and accommodations are expected to flow only one way and meet significant resistance to any movement the other way.
No, Turley wants colleges to NOT EXCLUDE conservatives. You mock conservatives feeling safe when in reality it was the lefty fragile kids that needed trigger warnings on books, safe spaces, segregated dorms and the banning of conservative speakers.
Name one liberal, pro-Palestinian, pro-trans, pro-gay, pro-Black or pro-abortion speaker that has been banned by any university. Now want to see how many pro-Israel, pro-choice, anti-trans speakers have been forced off campus, shouted down from speakers platforms or chased off of campus.
The way you see the world is childish in it’s partisan simplicity.
“This would put human beings back in the role of curators and moderators of what gets broadcasted out to the public.”
There’s a much easier way than your constant drumbeat of “Torts!”
Don’t click. Scroll down.
Do the Age of Rage and party spirit go hand in hand or are they one and the same? I don’t think one can exist without the other.
Maybe Addison was right. See, 16. Mischiefs Of Party Spirit, Spectator No. 50, 27/4/1711, Addison’s Essays
“If there were neither fools nor knaves in the world, all people would be of one mind.”
I don’t think one can exist without the other.
In other words you do not know. But maybe?
quot homines tot sententiae
Let me guess, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, Latin for every occasion.
Try harder next time
Using Latin phrases online can be a way to add perceived depth or authority to a statement, but it can also draw criticism, particularly when used incorrectly or inappropriately. Some people view the overuse of Latin quotes as pretentious or an attempt to sound more educated, with the ironic phrase “quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur” (whatever has been said in Latin seems deep) highlighting this perception.
“Some people view the overuse of Latin quotes as pretentious”
Oh, look. An Artificial Imbecile (likely ChatGPT) quoted by a flesh and blood example. How elucidating.
“Using Latin phrases online can be . . .”
Or it’s an eloquent expression that perfectly captures the meaning — as whig’s does.
Oh look, I’m an intellectual.
Rage as a reaction can be a just and proper response and a guide to identifying threats.
Example: you may experience rage when you are told that criticism of certain parties is not allowed and makes you a bad person, you have found a legitimate threat.
Listen to your rage, analyze it, and control it. Make sure it has correctly identified the threat.
Cheers
When I see foreign terrorists reaching into our nation’s youth to brainwash them about their “cause”, I feel rage.
But, how is that going to correct what is a complex problem involving the redesign of a borderless internet?
Rage would be valuable if it led to effective problem-solving. But, within rage lies its poison pill — refusal to take responsibility — it’s all about placing blame. That isn’t going to solve anything.
Rage tends to block out more moderate voices who have workable ideas how to solve complex problems. It draws attention and energy away from productive forms of discourse. It locks people into dichotomization traps (it either has to be A or B (and nothing in between).
Rage bait — what could possibly go wrong? Rah rah free speech.
America felt rage when Pearl Harbor was bombed. It broke the ideas logjam that said “Nazis are good people.”
The Japs who attacked Pearl Harbor, were not Nazis per se.
Anonymous 10:32 am- True the Japanese were not Nazi’s but as a direct result of Japan’s action Hitler felt compelled to support them (even thought the AXIS alliance was a defense pact) and promptly declared war on the US on Dec. 11, 1941, and Germany had previously committed an act of war on 10/31/1941 when the German U-552 torpedoed and sank the USS Reuben James resulting in the deaths of 100 American sailors.
“The British police have arrested people for silently praying in public, and a man was convicted for “toxic ideologies,” literal thought crimes.
As is common in Turley’s columns, he often leaves out crucial details that would change the context of his claims.
British police didn’t arrest a woman simply for “silently praying in public.” He always omits that the woman was praying within a buffer zone meant to keep everyone away. She was arrested for being inside that buffer zone. This is similar to the buffer zones around abortion clinics, which are constitutional. THAT is why she was arrested, not because she was silently praying.
The man convicted for “toxic ideologies” was not convicted because of his ideas; he was convicted because of his past incitement and rhetoric, which in the UK is also considered conduct. We punish conduct here. The difference is that the British view speech as conduct too, and that’s their prerogative. The professor often uses stories from the UK because it makes it easier to…rage…about attacks on free speech…in another country, not here, especially when Trump is in office, attacking free speech, and punishing those who criticize the government by trying to deport individuals who expressed their views through writing or organizing, which are not crimes. They’re simply guilty of being foreigners who exercised free speech. Turley never bothered to defend them or criticize the Trump administration for attacking free speech. Still, he sure likes to criticize distant countries because it’s easier.
My friends in England live in terror of the government. Several have moved to remote country towns to get away from the government oppression and the threat of rape and muggings by migrants. The freedom to think what we want, to say what we think, to write what we say. The founders put it first because all other rights depend upon it.
My friends in England live in terror of the government. Really? Maybe they’re just paranoid.
“Pictures from Birmingham show Vaughan-Spruce, 45, simply standing near the abortion clinic silently praying when an officer confronts her. She was not blocking access or displaying any protest signs or material. Nevertheless, she was arrested, jailed, interrogated, and ultimately charged with four counts of violating the abortion clinic “buffer zone.”
The above is a quote from Turley’s post about praying outside of an abortion clinic. He definitely does mention the “buffer zone”. He relates how the police asked her if she was praying. Only after she said she was in her head did she get arrested. If merely being in the buffer zone is enough to charge her, why ask her about prayer. I think you are being a little naive. For his post see:
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/24/without-a-hope-or-a-prayer-why-the-arrest-of-a-british-woman-outside-of-an-abortion-clinic-is-a-wake-up-call-for-free-speech/
Whether she was praying in her head or not is irrelevant. The point is still that she was in a buffer zone where she was not supposed to be. In Turley’s column, you cite, he is trying hard not to focus on the relevant issue, the buffer zone, which is why she was arrested. Not because she was silently praying. Under British law, it doesn’t matter what you were doing within the zone. What matters is that she was NOT supposed to loiter there. There is no exemption for “simply praying”.
As a lawyer, Turley should know that. Still, he used this example to twist the situation into something that is not true, so he could “rage bait” his conservative audience and accuse an “evil” government of suppressing free speech. The narrative’s disingenuous nature undermines his argument and credibility.
In Turley’s column, you cite, he is trying hard not to focus on the relevant issue…
…As a lawyer, Turley should know that.
BBBBUUTTTT… MUH TURLEY!!!!! DAMN YOU TURLEY… YOU DID THIS TO ME!!!!!
Is every one of your “Turley” sentences like a short soft little stroke on that tiny short little pole of yours, X?
This morning, George informs us: “As is common in Turley’s columns, he often leaves out crucial details that would change the context of his claims.”
As is common in George’s posts, he often leaves out crucial details that would change the context of his claims.
Here are some facts that George left out:
(1) The woman that George references was arrested for standing silently in front of an abortion facility THAT WAS CLOSED AT THE TIME.
(2) For these and other reasons, the charges were eventually DROPPED (including for a subsequent ‘offense’), thus vindicating her position. In court, she was awarded the equivalent of @$17K.
(3) British law has since been amended, new law in effect October 2024, with new clarification. Silent prayer within a buffer zone IS NOT an automatic offense, (in order to be prosecuted, it must meet other criteria of the prohibition, e.g., if it intentionally or recklessly influences someone’s decision to use abortion services, obstructs them, or causes harassment, alarm or distress to someone using or working at the premises.) “Instances will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with police and prosecutors deciding around the intent or recklessness of the person involved.” https://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/news/national/25053416.uk-laws-abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-us-saying/
(4) George says, “The man convicted for ‘toxic ideologies’ was not convicted because of his ideas; he was convicted because of his past incitement and rhetoric, which in the UK is also considered conduct.”
Apparently, George missed the direct quote (which Turley provided) of the judge in that case, “Judge Peter Lodder QC declared ‘I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.’”
George seems to have misunderstood the thrust of Turley’s point.
(5) George regularly states that this blog invites criticism, which he likes to engage in on a daily basis. He ends this post with, “Still, he [Turley] sure likes to criticize distant countries because it’s easier.” Apparently, the irony of those two statements, vis-a-vis, went over George’s head.
Lin, “Silent prayer within a buffer zone IS NOT an automatic offense”
OH but it is in England. She was still in a buffer zone and it would not have mattered if the Clinic was closed or not. The police arrested her for being in the zone, not for her silent prayer. As it is often said here. You don’t argue with the cops, you make your argument in COURT. The charges were dropped because he argued IN COURT. The cop had every right to arrest her if he/she deemed her in violation of the buffer zone ordinance. The arrest was NOT about her praying. It was about being in the buffer zone as the cop believed. It has nothing to do with her speech at all.
“Apparently, George missed the direct quote (which Turley provided) of the judge in that case, “Judge Peter Lodder QC declared ‘I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.’”
Again you miss the point. In the UK speech and certain views are also considered conduct. They also examimed his prior conduct to arrive at their conclusion. They do things differently and Turley likes to compare their laws against ours to twist the narrative into something else.
George. george. george.
George says, “Lin, ‘Silent prayer within a buffer zone IS NOT an automatic offense,’ OH but it is in England.”
No, George. It is not.
Please, George, for the benefit of all of us who wish to engage in exchange, READ WHAT I CITED. It was taken directly from the UK published source that I linked (showing the UK source).
Here is the verbatim quote:
“– Is silent prayer banned under national legislation?
“Silent prayer, which was been a point of contention throughout the passage of the national legislation at Westminster, is NOT an automatic offence,” (then goes on to explain the exceptions THAT I HAD ALREADY NOTED.)”
The only reason I even bother to take the time to write this is because so much of your information is incorrect that I wince when it is unchallenged. But I have better things to do with my time than apparently you, but your reputation for credibility on this post is well understood by the regulars as well as those bright enough to question it.
For your edification, here is another UK publication explaining silent prayer in buffer zones. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crown-prosecution-service-northern-ireland-england-wales-home-office-b2638883.html
Please read it carefully and in its entirety. You will see that what I said was 100% correct. Thanks anyway, George.
I will accept your silent apology.
To the irreligious silent prayer is an action much the same as a flasher opening their raincoat.
Lin,
Once again, another excellent take down of the slow and dumb one. And with such class!! As I have stated often, I generally just scroll past the slow and dumb one. But when you reply to the slow and dumb one, then I might read the slow and dumb one’s comment for context and to better enjoy how you simply eviscerate him.
How marvelous!
Lin, again, you miss the fact that a PSPO in the UK can be tailored to prohibit specific acts and that includes prayer at abortion clinics.
The cop asked the woman if she was praying and the moment she said I’m praying silently in my mind she admitted to being in violation of the PSPO for that clinic. That is what got her arrested. It didn’t matter if it was silent or just thinking it. What mattered to the cop is that she admitted verbally that she was doing something the PSPO prohibited. You argue that the arrest was ridiculous or unjust. But if, and I say IF she just kept her mouth shut and did nothing there wouldn’t have been a reason to arrest her. It’s her own fault for blurting out that she was praying.
If you doubt what I point out perhaps you should read it for yourself.
https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/10.21%20PSPO%20guidance_06_1.pdf
You, as a lawyer should understand that it was her admission to violating the rules of the buffer zone (PSPO) that got her arrested. All she needed to do is remain silent. But we both know that is not easy to do.
the PSPO was found to be not valid against the woman, which is why the charges against her were dismissed and she successfully sued. Clown
as has been repeatedly explained to you by more than one person, subsequent language clarified this, so as to further demand case-by-case analysis. YOU incorrectly referred to this present-day law, “OH but it is in England.” (your words as of December 2025), i.e., that “silent prayer in a buffer Zone IS automatically an offense.”
you are clearly a drowning clown who screams out all the harder as you sink.
Go on, clown, keep coming up for air.
The PSPO was valid when she was arrested. Only after her case was heard the PSPO was deemed invalid.
clown. non-lawyer. The case was judged against the version in place at the time.
SHE WON.
When told that “Silent prayer within a buffer zone IS NOT an automatic offense,’ YOU were the one who said, “OH but it is in England.”
Such a poor loser, goes on and on, twisting and manipulating what you said or meant. Clown for sure.
HEY GEORGE/X
You are linking to the OLD outdated PSPO guidance that caused all the problems. HA HA HA
Here’s the new one that others tried to tell you.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68cacba7995dfd01bff0c027/2025_ASB_Statutory_Guidance_updates_final_version_1.pdf
Worth repeating:
George says, “Lin [said], ‘Silent prayer within a buffer zone IS NOT an automatic offense,’
OH but it is in England.”
Lin says, “No, George. It is not.”
Lin, again, you miss the fact that a PSPO in the UK can be tailored to prohibit specific acts and that includes prayer at abortion clinics.
X, you miss the obvious: you and your lies have been sliced, diced and shredded. More lies will not save you.
Your total absence of a developed prefrontal cortex means we suffer on in the knowedge you are incapable of feeling either shame or embarrassment.
You are a wonder in that you persist as though you’ve convinced yourself that you actually have some small shred of credibility among the readers here.
Again you miss the point.
Again you persist in demanding we don’t recognize you as the psychotic liar that you are. Well we do.
Which is why every day your whining about Turley results in you getting clubbed with all the effort needed to club a newborn baby seal.
Lin, the silent-praying case, Turley also omitted the fact that buffer zones or Public Space Protection Orders in the UK CAN specify prohibitions on praying.
The cop asked the woman if she was praying, and she said, “Only silently in my head”. As a lawyer, you should know that she admitted to praying in the buffer zone, where it was illegal according to that particular PSPO, whether she acknowledged it silently in her head or aloud did not matter. She said she was praying, and that was all the cop needed to effect an arrest. Ultimately, she won in court, and that is where you make your argument. But her open admission that she was praying, and the PSPO specifically forbade, was what got her arrested. It seems PSPOs in England can be tailored very specifically to the restrictions they can impose.
The question posed by the police officers is no different from asking a driver, “Have you been drinking tonight?” If the answer is “just one beer officer,” that is enough to initiate a DUI investigation, and I’m sure you are aware that they often end up with a DUI arrest.
What she should have done, as is always wise advice, is to remain silent. Unfortunately, she opened her mouth and admitted she was praying. That was enough to arrest her under the PSPO’s restrictions.
I am following this exchange. You are wrong, X,
It looks like you keep filling pages up with non-related word, but the bottom line is as stated, “Silent prayer, which was been a point of contention throughout the passage of the national legislation at Westminster, is NOT an automatic offence,”
As a non-lawyer, you should nonetheless understand that
1. The case against her was overturned. She collected $$$$ in court.
2. THe law was amended to now reflect that additional criteria must be met to find an offence in a safe zone or buffer zone, as was explained to you by more than one person apparently.
“””No Automatic Ban on Silent Prayer in Protected Zones Outside Abortion Clinics”
“Silent prayer will not be automatically banned in new protected zones around abortion clinics in England and Wales coming into force on Thursday. Instances will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with police and prosecutors deciding around the intent or recklessness of the person involved.”
“Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance states that a person carrying out activities within a zone such as silent prayer ‘will not necessarily commit a criminal offence’”.
“It adds: ‘Prosecutors will need to consider not only all the facts and circumstances of the particular conduct but also the context in which the conduct takes place.'”
https://www.irishnews.com/news/uk/no-automatic-ban-on-silent-prayer-in-protected-zones-outside-abortion-clinics-R34RJC45CZLZ7LWAFPOAUCRHVY/
George was wrong.
I wasn’t wrong. They changed the law AFTER this case. She was in violation of the PSPO at the time of her arrest. That’s why your rebuttal is wrong.
I wasn’t wrong.
Yours lies were indeed wrong. Your new lie that you weren’t wrong is also wrong.
Y’know George/X/Anonymous: if there was a lifetime quota on the number of lies a person could tell in a lifetime, you would have been struck dumb years ago.
X/George you WERE wrong. You ARE wrong. They didn’t change the law—they clarified it== SO THAT PEOPLE DON’T HAVE TO GO TO COURT EVERY TIME LIKE THAT WOMAN HAD TOO. GOD ARE YOU DENSE OR WHAT
So you support buffer zones in order to keep out protesters from clinics? Are there any other places where you would support buffer zones? How about a buffer zone around a detention center for illegals? How about a buffer zone around Brett Kavanaugh’s house? How about a buffer zone against highways?
As is common in Turley’s columns, he often leaves out crucial details that would change the context of his claims.
Not only common, but daily with X, it’s BBBBUUUTTTTT….MUH TURLEY!!!!
X, George, whatever…. this is a sick sexual affliction you’re trying to live with, isn’t it? The days spent here with hours spinning psychotic lie after lie… you’re never going to get better.
As is common in Turley’s columns, he often leaves out crucial details that would change the context of his claims.
As is common (and inevitable) in X’s posts: BBBBUUUUTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!! DAMN YOU PEOPLE, DON’T YOU SEE HIM LIKE i DO!!!!!!
You’re a bloody stalker!
“No one is being “hijacked” on the Internet. They are choosing their sources, and many create siloes or echo chambers. It is a common feature of “an age of rage.”
The reaction to this article should be a clear and obvious “DUH!” It’s deeply ironic that “rage rhetoric” is also… effective. Professor Turley conveniently avoids admitting that he, too, employs “rage bait” to lure readers into…raging against the left. The truth is glaringly obvious. The professor would be more credible if he openly acknowledged using “rage bait” to promote his book and maintain his blog’s readership.
It’s revealing how Professor Turley almost dismisses the fact that those on the right also engage in rage rhetoric. However, he fails to criticize or condemn it as thoroughly as he does when targeting the left or his own employer, which uses “rage bait” extensively to retain its audience.
Professor Turley warns that rage rhetoric and “rage bait” are being exploited for sinister purposes: to silence opposing views and attack free speech. Yet, he often characterizes genuine criticism as “attacks,” fueling rage among those on the right. Ironically, Turley excels at using language to provoke rage, and he manipulates words to incite the right to rage against the left. Why? Because it’s an effective strategy for gaining views, readers, and attention. While claiming he is not a free speech absolutist, he clearly advocates as if he were.
Qualifiers such as conveniently, almost, However, Exploited, characterizes, ironically, claiming, credible etc… are commonly used to modify the certainty or intensity of a claim, making statements less absolute. Every comment from X always includes qualifiers.
And your point is…?
And your point is?
A safe measure, commonly used by lawyers, who understand the consequences of nuanced words/wording.
but georgie is not a lawyer he just tries to copycat.
Yes. And, the dichotomization trap that rage speech causes is evident in JT’s essay.
Based solely on the Oxford Press choosing “rage bait” as the word of the year, he automatically assigns them to the “pro-state-censorship” opposition. In other words, there’s only one way for society to uphold civility in the public square — state censorship. That’s what “they” want. We want “free speech”.
Translation: screw civility in the public square, who needs it?
We do. All free societies do. The exchange of productive dialog in the public square suffers of intemperate voices (those adverse to taking responsibility) drown out more dispassionate, reasoned voices. Societies are complex organizations, and we have complex problems to solve. The quality of discourse bears directly on ability to think through options and make the best decisions in realtime. Anything that impedes or stalls this is a ticket to a nation in decline.
Of course, there are ways we can reign in rage bait, and the “us vs. them” dystopia is has spawned. And they don’t include the extremes of either state-censorship or doing nothing. But, the dichotomization trap says those are the only two options, and you better choose sides.
It’s revealing how Professor Turley almost dismisses the fact that those on the right also engage in rage rhetoric.
Mad King George X would be unable to write a post without it containing at least one BBBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!! HE’S WRONG. HE’S WRONG. HE’S WRONG. HE’S WRONG.
One little problem. Rage bait is two words, not one.
Another little problem, one can write ragebait anyway one wants. There is no hard grammar rule for rage bait. You’re spellchecker must be a liberal.
Funny how some people miss the crux of the article and focus on idioms..
It is not two words. It is a compound noun acting as a single unit.
The “desire to regulate” speech is, in plain terms, the desire to expel, not only speech leftists find annoying, but the thoughts behind that speech and the people who think those thoughts, from “society” entirely.
Many would be happy to see us all dead.
Welcome Ellen Evans, the new Minister of Truth. You have the correct mindset. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. You excel.
Who is the “many” and who is “us”?
“The “desire to regulate” speech is, in plain terms, the desire to expel, not only speech leftists find annoying, but the thoughts behind that speech and the people who think those thoughts, from “society” entirely.”
The Trump administration did exactly that when it tried to deport Rumeyza Ozturk and Mamhoud Khalil. Both expressed views critical of the government—one by co-writing an op-ed, the other by organizing a protest and seeking a peaceful solution to pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus. Both were targeted for deportation because they held views the President disliked. Professor Turley remained silent on an issue where he should have been strongly and openly supporting both individuals. He chose to ignore it because doing otherwise would have exposed him to outrage from the right. The hypocrisy and irony in this situation were glaring.
Jonathan Turley – Political Diode.
Professor Turley remained silent on an issue where he should have been strongly and openly supporting both individuals.
BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!! BBBBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!!
(could somebody pass George X a box of Kleenex and give him some private time?)
There has always been the same rage over the centuries. The difference concerns the range of rage. That is, how far rage is transmitted. In all of the past until, say, the printed book or newspaper, rage has been locally contained to the dinner table, or pub, or church. With the Internet today, the range of rage is infinite, and can find like-minded persons anywhere. By comparison, the Internet is something like a gigantic mimeograph machine, pumping out somebody’s poison. Without the Internet, the age of rage would be still localized and mostly harmless, but still annoying.
True. Private rage, though it can lead to people doing horrible things, has no potency in the larger society. The Internet allows distillation of rage to 200 proof, and people use it so. I do not enjoy anger, though I have on occasion, in my youth, indulged it. It feels unwholesome, and always did to me. Rage is anger on steroids, distended and distorted.
It’s rather like a disease, a potentially lethal one.
Excuse me, is this the Jane Austin reading circle?
I blame farmers. They are producing too much food. When we are starving, we think only about food. When we are well fed all our lives, we have time to think about our feelings.
edwardmahl.
The other week, I was having a conversation with a friend over dinner about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It is only when we have met the lower levels of needs that we can contemplate our feelings and in this case, the absurdity of leftists thinking, like 97 different genders.
Please list the first 20 genders. It’s rhetorical because your supposition is nonsensical. Gender is, however, separated from biological sex and, even in humans, there are several biological sexes based on the number of sex-related chromosomes and their combinations. XX and XY are the most frequent, but XXY is not vanishingly rare. Also there are X- where there is no second chromosome, as well as XXXY, XXXX, XYY.
So that means biological sex has 7 known variants.
Gender is more complicated as it is a personal evaluation of relative position in sexuality, mainly driven by the inbuilt understanding of feelings concerning personal sexual attributes and the influence of sexual attributes in other people. Since one of those factor is having no particular interest, that would starting from the original 7, be 8 possible pairings, for a total of 64 different gender evaluations. While many are rare it is, as many point out, “As GOD made them”
Who is a puny farmer, an insignificant speck in the universe, to question God’s work?
There are also those who feel strongly masculine, the sort who rages at the slightest frustration. There are those who are middling masculine, who can accept what others say. Those who are only slightly masculine, for whom being masculine is not of much interest. Similarly a scale of femininity.
Those feelings change over their lives. Small children have vague feelings towards sex; puberty hits and with it some confusion. Later the feelings become crystallized, for many, but there are those who never feel settled and change their feelings. But the evaluations of self? Those can begin very early with comparing themselves to the way they see other people.
So far, there’s no suitable explanation of how thoughts originate and how thoughts are evaluated, much less how DNA leads to specific thoughts.
Please list the first 20 genders.
Please remember that ridiculous sealions properly belong in a circus, perched on a stool while clapping their flippers while balancing a beach ball on their nose.
Sealioning:
Sealioning is a form of adolescent trolling where someone persistently demands answers to insincere questions to provoke a response, often pretending to seek a civil debate while actually trying to exhaust or frustrate others with no intention of real discourse. This behavior is characterized by a facade of politeness and a refusal to acknowledge previous answers.
Often used as a tactic by frustrated whining Democrats in online forums and podcasts
“. . . Jane Austin . . .”
If you wish to impress others, while kicking over their sandcastles, spell the author’s name correctly.
It’s “Austen.”
Ellen Evans,
Well said. As we have seen how distended and distorted hate and rage thinking has lead a few wackos to attempt murder, assassinations, and as we have seen, other wackos celebrate when they do commit murder, like they did when that healthcare CEO was killed or Charlie Kirk shot and killed.
And you mathematically deduced that?
Wait, did you write “mimeograph machine”? What century are you living in?
If all the internet did was act as a mimeograph that would be tolerable. Instead it has layered upon large sections of it gates and valves to direct information, unbidden, to users in an effort to game the system of advertising that drives the social media engine. Put up an article that says “Christmas is a holiday of kindness” and one get’s gentle nods, but no one feels a need to respond. Put up an article that says “Christmas is being stolen by atheists” and the conservatives will respond with angry comments about how Satan is involved – indicating to advertisers that the readers are engaged and paying attention and that the ads are getting noticed.
On platforms like TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter (X) the software is designed to feed “engagement,” a measurable reaction to content. The greatest reaction to content is when that content is challenging to the beliefs of the viewer. No one tries to bean the umpire for making an agreeable call. It’s the feedback that the content is reaching eyeballs and carrying advertising to them that’s important.
On top of this, the advertisers also have influence. The ads are not simply put out randomly; they can ask for “white” “male” “18-25” living in “a majority Republican population.” So, if one wants to get them to the polls they can make an ad that tells them they can “Own the libs by getting out to vote.” No detailed message, just point and shoot. For the older demographic – An ad claiming that crime is going up and that this matches the increase in immigrants, regardless of there being no causal connection or that crime is actually falling.
Because billionaires fund these ad campaigns through essentially anonymous money laundering political action committees, the targets of the ads never realize that it’s just a couple of rich guys lying to them so the rich guys can get richer.
To boost the apparent effect of the content, there are firms who set up fake accounts by the thousands, tens of thousand, and hundreds of thousands that will make comments on content they want to drive or just give them a “thumbs up” click.
Then comes the kicker. Those same fake accounts can be used to generate fake content, which they then upvote to get a slice of the revenue from the ads that are posted alongside. Some of them solicit direct contributions to “support the cause.”
Over on reddit someone paying attention found that r/conservative had nearly 80% of the content generated by 15 accounts. This was noticed because, when Ukraine drones hit the Moscow power grid and took down all the power in the greater Moscow region, those accounts, instead of their nearly non-stop posting, all went silent – and posted nothing until the power in Moscow was restored.
Does this mean that Putin is trying to subvert American conservative politics? Maybe not. The simplest explanation is kickbacks from advertising. reddit makes a great place to form a basis of discontent to get people to send money to offshore accounts claiming to be “Patriots for America” or “Republican Renewal”
Put up an article that says “Christmas is a holiday of kindness” and one get’s gentle nods, but no one feels a need to respond.
BS… the rage filled Democrat Marx-worshiping atheists will demand that a court order it removed. And if it’s actually a sign? Oh God… they have a collective Midol Moment.
BTW, your combination of AI and flailing 18 year old Democrat Marxist who can’t contain his hatred of either Republicans or billionaires, struggling through your first philosophy class is murky, inarticulate – and not the slightest bit entertaining. And they don’t improve in quality as you continue posting them.