Below is my column in The Hill on the move by the Trump Administration against five leading figures in the European censorship movement, including Thierry Breton, the former European Union commissioner responsible for digital policy. The United States is finally responding to what is an existential threat to American values. It is worth noting, as I discuss in my new book, Rage and the Republic, that the EU is not only exporting its censorship rules but threatening American companies that do not meet its environment, social and governance (ESG) policies. It is time for Congress to follow suit and get into this fight.
Here is the column:
“We are the free world now.” Those words from Raphael Glucksmann, a French socialist member of the European Parliament, captured the pearl-clutching outrage of Europeans after the Trump administration did what no prior administration has ever done — stand up to Europe to defend the freedom of speech.
This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio barred five figures closely associated with European censorship efforts from traveling to the U.S. This includes Thierry Breton, the former European Union commissioner responsible for digital policy.
In a post on X, Rubio declared that the U.S. “will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship” and will target “leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States.”
Breton achieved infamy as one of the architects of the massive EU censorship system, which is now being globalized. Armed with the notorious Digital Services Act, Breton and others threatened American companies and officials that they would have to yield to European standards of free speech. After Breton learned that Musk was planning to interview Trump before the last presidential election, he even warned the X owner that he would be “monitored” and potentially subject to EU fines.
Socialist Glucksmann is now irate at “this scandalous sanction against Thierry Breton.”
“We are Europeans,” he declared. “We must defend our laws, our principles, our interests.” In other words, this is a war over whether Europe or the U.S. Constitution will dictate the scope of free speech for American companies and citizens.
Breton and his colleagues are finally being treated as what they are: a clear and present danger to the “indispensable right” that defines all Americans.
The EU has been enlisted by anti-free speech figures in the U.S. to force companies like X and Facebook to restore censorship of Americans. After Musk bought Twitter with a pledge to restore free-speech protections, Hillary Clinton called upon European officials to force him to censor under Europe’s Digital Services Act.
Nina Jankowicz, the former head of Biden’s infamous Disinformation Governance Board, appeared before the European Parliament. She called upon the 27 EU countries to fight against the U.S., which she described as a global threat.
The E.U. enthusiastically took up the challenge. This year, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, which boosted the slogan, “A New World Order with European Values.” Bill and Hillary Clinton and other Americans cheered on the European efforts.
The Digital Services Act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” When it was passed over the condemnations of many of us in the free speech community, European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore — that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”
It is indeed a “real thing.” In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the challenges facing our republic in the 21st century, including the EU and its transnational governance model. Many on the left are supporting the erosion of national laws and values in favor of standards set by global experts and elites.
This cadre of American enablers has been increasingly vocal in Europe. Notably, late-night ABC host Jimmy Kimmel delivered a Christmas Eve address in Great Britain denouncing the U.S. as a global threat. He declared that “from a fascism perspective, this has been a really great year. Tyranny is booming over here.”
It was crushingly ironic. Many of us have been writing for years about how free speech has been eviscerated in the United Kingdom, where people are being prosecuted for “toxic ideologies” and an ever-lengthening list of unacceptable political viewpoints.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a warning this week about the collapse of free speech in the United Kingdom. Yet that is where a comedian, who is paid millions and attacks Trump and conservatives nightly, went to complain about the threat to free speech in the U.S.
Both Vice President JD Vance and Secretary Rubio have delivered major speeches warning the EU about its effort to export censorship systems, particularly targeting American citizens and companies. After years of encouragement and enabling from the Obama and Biden administrations, the U.S. government is finally in this fight.
That is why Europe is up in arms, denouncing the move to bar these officials as an attack on its own sovereignty. In other words, an effort to defend our own free speech values is a threat to the proclaimed “New World Order with European Values.”
In reality, I do not like travel bans. I prefer that these figures come to this country and face free-speech advocates. Yet despite our calls for Congress to get into this fight, it has done nothing due to opposition from Democratic members. We cannot wait as the EU weaponizes and globalizes censorship.
Glucksmann is right about one thing. This is a fight over who today can be rightfully called the “free world.” In the U.S., we continue to cling to the quaint notion that the free world should be based on … well, freedom.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” on the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution.
America should break relations, to a greater or lesser degree, with all nations that refuse and reject the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
General George Patton was right; this should have been resolved in 1945.
What would the reaction be?….cooperation?….or stiffer resistance? You’re political thinking is that of a 3-year-old.
3-year-olds aren’t expected to be able to simulate consequences to their actions. Adults are.
The question we need to ask is why are these people trying for force censorship on everyone, to include America, while claiming they are for democracy?
I believe they are seeking to expand their central control to enslave more of the people of the EU. In order to do that, they cannot have any kind of criticism. They must control the narrative. They need censorship and have to silence any opposition to include Americans.
Thankfully we have the Constitution. However the pesky little document is an impediment to Democrats in their quest for a similar big, centralized government like the EU. Which would explain why, as the good professor points out, Democrats are also calling for censorship of speech they do not like. Their biggest cheerleaders are Hillary Clinton, Obama, and now the DSA.
The good news is a lot of the native born EU are getting fed up with this nonsense. There have been more and more push back against mass immigration and the lack of punishment when immigrants commit crimes. What the media calls far-right the rest of us call it common sense. The defend the criminals, demonize the victims or just ignore the problem by not reporting it at all. Take a look at our own MSM and their reporting of the mass fraud ongoing in Minnesota.
Meanwhile they seem heck bent on crushing any kind of peace deal between the Ukraine and Russia and seemingly trying to get a larger war. I think we need to rethink our NATO membership and our commitments to NATO members if they are the ones pushing for a war. That is not defense from Russia. That is starting a war with Russia, the exact opposite of what NATO was meant for. And if they do get us into a war, I say we only provide logistical and material support. Put them on the front lines rather then depending on America to do the fighting and dying for them.
Actually, I would have liked for Thiery Breton to come here. I’m sure he would visit U.S. college campuses, where the most gullible and impressionable young people are.
But we could give him a little taste of his own medicine.
First, pack the student audience with conservative students. Then, let them SHOUT him down- with loud raucous protests, so that no one could hear what he was saying.
JUST LIKE left-wing Stanford students who shouted down Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Duncan! And left-wing SUNY students who shouted down TPA-sponsored conservative writer Ian Haworth, who has been critical of “gender mutilation” of transgender people! —or UC at Davis students who shouted down Charlie Kirk! — or San Francisco U students who shouuted down Riley Gaines, who was mugged and raped by an illegal immigrant. Other conservatives could form raucous protests to “dis-invite” Breton or other Eu guests, or form long protest lines barring his entrance.
–After all, he likely would be engaging in speech that conservative students just don’t want to hear. Hearing multiple views on an issue or topic is sooo “foreign” to them.
“But we could give him a little taste of his own medicine..” He would not accept any invitation (assuming a conservative could get into entourage), even if he smelled a trap which is what you’re stating. So that’s how you view international relations huh? Imagine you going to France an being spit on by French government airport employees, if they knew you were coming. You’re a deranged fool.
I stated no such thing. I regret that you don’t seem to understand sarcastic humor. I’ll try harder to please you next time and make it simpler.
Lin,
In order to make it simpler for it to understand, you would need crayons.
AI
If you’re developing an AI platform, wouldn’t it be an excellent way for it to learn by allowing it to respond to open source exchanges?
How is it good international relations when Europe threatens the free speech rights of Americans?
We don’t need Thierry or any Bretons. They can stay in Paris with the Muslims in no-go zones. And Scary Poppins can stay in Brussels and Jack Smith in The Hague.
Creekan: True, but we need to know what they are saying before we can address it. Better chest-stabbing than backstabbing.
The one who cautions me is right here at home: Mamdani in NY and his Democratic Socialists of America.
https://ymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/socialism-and-young-socialists.html
So Uber-likeable and promising, proselytizing for the masses.
(I meant the chest-stabbing comment metaphorically- to compliment the word backstabbing)
Elon Musk saved free speech in America by purchasing Twitter. He has earned the gratitude of anyone who values freedom, and the wrath of those who prefer the government-social-media censorship complex.
Remember when anyone who disagreed with Big Brother’s covid narrative was censored? That doesn’t happen anymore, and moreover, those who were censored were right, and Big Brother was wrong on just about every major point regarding vaccine mandates, covid’s origins, the efficacy of school closures, masking, and social distancing – all of which irreparably harmed society in so many ways. But those mandates were a power trip for totalitarian state officials, so all dissenters had to be silenced. I noticed about the same time all the “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” bumper stickers were quietly removed from cars.
H.L Mencken said, “There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.” And so it is with how Europe is handling the free speech issue. It, of course. is wrong, but so are we in minimizing the reasons for it. Digging a bit deeper would expose what Europe is really experiencing: a radical revolution of Islamists who have invaded it and recaptured some of the land they were driven from in the Seventeenth Century.
Virtually every major city in Europe is populated by millions of Muslims, and some cities have elected them as mayors and political leaders. Free speech is a wholly Judeo-Christian tradition, and some of its aspects are anathema to Muslims. For the most part, common insults, especially of public figures, are tolerated in the U.S. as free speech. In Islam, insulting the prophet can cost one their head and has from time to time throughout Europe. Abiding by these customs and muzzling free speech can help indigenous Europeans keep their heads, at least for now.
Because Europe abandoned its Judeo-Christian heritage decades ago, it stands to reason that in its absence, Sharia law is acceptable and, perhaps, even preferable for some socialist-leaning anti-Jewish and anti-Christian politicians. But not to worry. The U.S. rescued Europe twice in the last century, and we’re ready to do it again, if and when necessary.
De Gaulle liked to say that people have friends, but countries have interests. That was true in his time and is true today. The European economic interests are heavily dependent on the U.S. (and vice versa). The U.S. economy currently contributes 44.38 percent of global GDP, while Europe comes in next at 28.85 percent. China contributes 19.4 percent. The rest of the planet accounts for the remainder of the global GDP. In the Ozzie Myers school of public policy, money talks, and you-know-what walks!
It could be argued that, in this case, travel bans are a form of censorship on the part of the Trump administration. The leading European proponents of censorship should be allowed entry into the U.S. for a dose of American reality. I agree with the good Professor Turley on that one.
Anon: Yes and no. The European leaders already know as much as they need to about the rights they have suspended and coming to the US only reinforces their views that they are correct. It’s like the 9/11 terrorists spent much of their time before their dastardly deeds at porn clubs and the like. They did not see these clubs as an expression of freedom or liberty but, instead, examples of western decadence. It reinforced their basic Islamic beliefs. Likewise, if we allow the Europeans to visit the U.S., they will do so only to reinforce their beliefs that we are wrong and they are right.
It could be argued that, in this case, travel bans are a form of censorship on the part of the Trump administration.
It can? Well: argue how their speech is censored by being travel banned to ANY country? Someplace in the rest of the world, where the Internet and news media interested in click bait do not exist? They are unable to speak to their hoped for audience other than in person, in their presence?
Following that line of logic, Americans who are for some reason or other unable to listen to them speak in person, are also being subjected to the same form of censorship.
If that actually is Professor Turley’s belief, he’s just as wrong in that as he is in providing cover for his fellow Washington DC lawyers and remaining a Democrat.
I don’t agree with the bans for other reasons, but “censorship” is not one of those reasons.
I don’t think Professor Turley’s column holds together well — he seems to be cheerleading the travel ban and other tough action for much of the column and then in one part he says he doesn’t like travel bans.
Putin has been calling EU politicians “Little Pigs” who like cheap Russian oil and gas.
Did it hurt their feelings?
Probably… oink, oink
Russia has had two (2) specific requirements for the end of conflict in Ukraine since at least 2008 ; 1. Ukraine military neutrality and 2. resolution of the raging civil war going on in eastern Ukraine since the coup in 2014.
In 2022, the people living in eastern Ukraine officially petitioned to join the Russian Federation, citing the ‘Right to Self-Determination’ outlined in the UN charter (see Art. 51). In 2023, the people living in 4 oblasts/territories in eastern Ukraine were incorporated into the Russian Federation.
Afaict, if the U.S./Nato armed/funded coup-regime in Ukraine would withdraw from the remaining 10% +/- of that territory, the war would end in 24 hours or less .. and I’m confident Russia would offer real ‘security guarantees’ for that to happen.
*pop quizz; name the 8 wars Trump has resolved this year .. . and the first two don’t count.
dgsnowden — Except that the 2022 petition was rigged.
How so, David? As I understand it, roughly 10-15 million ethnic/cultural Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine had been in conflict with ‘their own government’ since the U.S./Nato-backed coup in 2014.
Russia, obviously, does not need territory. According to Putin, it was only after many years of trying to resolve the civil was (see Minsk I&II) in Ukraine, did Russia reluctantly grant the petition.
*I’m confident, Russia’s military/use of force in Ukraine was neither ‘unprovoked’ nor, initially, a ‘full-scale’ invasion .. . in fact, the battle for Mariupol 2022 was led by the DPR (Donetsk Peoples Republic?).
dgsnowden — Russia might not need the territory but Putin has clearly stated the he wants it all.
David. That is absolutely incorrect. .. in fact, Putin did not ‘want’ the 4 territories in eastern Ukraine.
*Russia/Putin has tried to resolve the conflict peacefully for many years – see, e.g., the Minsk Agreements and the ‘signed’ peace agreement in Istanbul March/April 2022. .. which would have left the territories in Ukraine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tovarisch dgsnowden said: According to Putin, it was only after many years of trying to resolve the civil was (see Minsk I&II) in Ukraine, did Russia reluctantly grant the petition.
According to Putin, it’s just a streak of Clintonesque fate that any politician or journalist that threatens his rule accidentally die by falling out of hotel windows, plane crashes, etc.
*Tovarisch… it doesn’t strike you as abnormal that Putin felt no need to invade the Soviet Union’s former vassal states when they joined NATO 15 years before his first unprovoked invasion of Ukraine?
**a useful hint: Czechia, Hungary and Poland in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004 – a decade before Putin began attempting to rebuild the Soviet Union, starting with Ukraine. Albania and Croatia joined NATO in 2004 – no invasions from Putin ten years before his first invasion of Ukraine.
The trouble started during the Russian Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics.
Ukrainians were protesting and fire bombed a pro Russian mayor’s office, President Yanukovych.
The real shooting started after a U.S./Nato funded/supported coup in 2014.
So Persistent Obama was the one who started the trouble?
Obama, coyly, said Russia will always have “escalatory dominance in Ukraine” unquote .. . and then he sent VP Biden and his son Hunter to sort things out there!
*note. Biden finally beat Medicare.
CIA and Obama.
dgsnowden let his inner Russkie show with this: Afaict, if the U.S./Nato armed/funded coup-regime in Ukraine would withdraw from the remaining 10% +/- of that territory, the war would end in 24 hours or less .. and I’m confident Russia would offer real ‘security guarantees’ for that to happen.
Same ‘security guarantees’ that Poland and the other 13 former Soviet vassal states that later joined NATO – without being invaded by Putin as Ukraine was (twice under Democrat presidents) – agree with you on?
*pop quizz for chronic vodka day drinkers: what third country joined with the USA and the UK in a defense pact where they assured Ukraine of their sovereignty and to come to Ukraine’s defense if another country attacked Ukraine – as long as Ukraine would surrender the 3,300 nukes and delivery platforms they had pointed at Russia after the USSR collapsed?
Get sober .. . and don’t drink the Kool-Aid.
Presently, the only country that can offer real security guarantees to Ukraine is .. . you guessed it, Russia.
*re. the Budapest Memorandum. 1. the nuclear weapons belonged to the old, collapsed USSR not the new state of Ukraine and 2. Nobody, and I mean Nobody, wanted those nuclear weapons to remain in Ukraine .. . and for good reason.
The reason was nuclear non-proliferation, to stop any new contries from acquiring nukes. When Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus split off from Russia in 1993, all 3 became nations housing nuclear weapons. The weapons were developed by Soviet Union scientists & engineers, and that would include scientists from most of the Republics who worked on them.
America would do the exact same thing if the UN NATO was to install nuclear capabilities on our borders. Simple as that.
Turley– “the U.S. government is finally in this fight.”
Great column! Thank you for all you do.
In this instance the US government is [as you noticed] the administration rather than Congress.
Trump’s cabinet is looking very good in this fight, all of them, but Rubio and Vance are standouts.
Yesterday my neighbor called “Happy New Year! I hope next year will be better!”
I replied, “Happy New Year! I think this year was pretty good. This is what I voted for!”
Dear Prof Turley,
Euro trash. Sir George Galloway, 7-time MP and one of the finest orators in the world, was recently held/questioned for hours at Heathrow for his opposition to Europe’s involvement in Ukraine. .. he is now living in exile.
When in Rome, you might also want to read Trump’s new NSPM -7. In it, you will find the president of the United States of America has directed the federal government to root-out any lingering ‘anti-Christian, anti-capitalism and anti-American’ sentiment established by radical left scum, weak&stupid RINOs, Joe Biden’s Autopen and the barbarian hordes of illegal aliens.. . this is war.
*someone always gets screwed at Mar-a-Lago . ..
Why not go to war with Europe to put an end to all of this censorship once and for all?
No need. It will collapse under its own weight.
Politicians (with *rare* exception) are useless scum who desire the power to control the rest of us, and believe that they are entitled to become stinking rich for their efforts in that regard. This (again, with rare exception) is a non-partisan ambition. When a politician claims to support some liberty or other, you may rest assured that he or she only does so for as long as that claim of support advances the desire for power and riches. As soon as that correlation ends, that politician will be making every effort possible to revoke the offending liberty. This is exactly what has happened to free speech in Europe. Don’t for one instant relax and think that we in the US are immune to this phenomenon. The nature of politicians in universal.
Arrrgghh! “The nature of politicians IS universal.”
. Don’t throw your pearls to the swine. They’ll trample them and then turn and rend you.
Why are the isolationists so concernced about European affairs all of a sudden?
Because Europe is trying to censor Americans outside of America. Make no mistake, the EU is a threat to our freedom in America.
Russia has killed 92 Americans outside of America in Ukraine.
Make no mistake, Russia is a threat to our freedom in America
Being killed is much worse than merely being censored.
What were those Americans doing in a war zone during a conflict in which we are allegedly neutral. More than likely advancing the interests of the Deep State by advising or otherwise aiding the Ukranians in their prosecution of that war. Scramble back into your hole, warmongrel.
The warmongrel is a paid lobbyist for the military industrial complex.
If you visit a war zone, you risk being a casualty. All you arm chair generals are the same. If you are so pro-Ukraine, volunteer, pick a rifle and jump in a trench. They will gladly take you. Put your money, and your life, where your mouth is or shut up. While you’re at it, quit hiding behind “Anonymous.” Are you embarrassed by your positions?
@Jeff – The anon above is just as entitled to express their opinion as you are. In the USA that right does not require first expending money or risking one’s life. As for posting anonymously, it affords the poster some protection against biased or unhinged people who don’t respect the 1st amendment and might feel inclined to somehow punish the poster for views they don’t agree with. But, if you’re a regular at this site, you ought to know that already.
Isn’t Jeff equally free to say to anonymous what he said? And you are equally to tell Jeff what you told him. And I am equally free to post this comment, including telling you to respect Jeff’s free speech rights.
Unlike Jeff, I didn’t suggest that anyone, including Jeff, should “shut up”. In fact I didn’t ask anything of anyone – I merely tried to explain a bit about how I think free speech works in the USA, as well as explaining why I don’t think posting anonymously is indicative of being embarrassed. I’m not sure how what I said could be interpreted as disrespecting Jeff’s free speech rights. Of course you didn’t explicityly say I didn’t respect his rights, but then why did you feel the need to tell me I should?
If you are so pro-Ukraine, volunteer, pick a rifle and jump in a trench.
1. How many people saying that volunteered to pick up a rifle in the 20 years after 9/11 – versus watching from the security and safety the next 20 years gave them as others did that?
2. Perhaps a more relevant question would be: would we be whining if Ukraine still had those 3,300 nukes and delivery systems pointed at Russia because we failed to talk them into surrendering them because we were terrified shyteless of a nuclear Ukraine?
What, specifically, did we promise Ukraine in exchange for them surrendering those nukes that terrified us? Must have been something more than money, or used Cold War blankets and rations, etc.
There were LOTS of prospective customers in nations like Iran, the DPRK, etc who would have been happy to fork over billions of dollars in unmarked cash, Obama style for just a few of those nukes if Ukraine was just focused on cash.
So what did Bush/Clinton guarantee Ukraine back then to convince them to give up their source of nuclear defense and billions of dollars in cash and weapons in exchange for some of them?
Seems a fair question – whether you actually were in uniform deploying before the cold war ended and after 9/11… or just sitting home safe on your couch offering opinions.
Partly because the European DSA has extra-territorial effect. In other words, the EU will fine a US site owner if a US person in the US posts content to a US site if the EU doesn’t like the content and its possible for someone in the EU to view it. To avoid that fine, the US company would have to somehow censor the content seen by Europeans to meet EU standards, even if it is totally legal content in the US.
It’s time for America to divest Europe. Europe is not Our problem. Shutter all Military installations, pull out all ancillary organizations (NGO’s and Humanitarian Organization), and let the People of Europe take care of themselves. They’ll have to figure it out then, maybe have a few revolutions of Their own, but it’s Their thing, on Their dime.
Since World War II ended in with Germany’s surrendering in May 1945 (V-E Day), Europe has had plenty of time to figure it out.
[The period from May 1945 to December 2026 spans 81 years, 7 months, covering the end of World War II until Now.]
America has is done it’s part, They have had time to ‘Grow-Up’. The Free Speech thing is their business, if They want to fu_k it up again let em. Some Children just don’t learn their lessons in life. That’s not the U.S. problem, we have plenty of our own.
It a lesson for the rest of the World as well. They won’t get anything more from Us unless they Grow-Up.
Let’s make America Great Again, for US. Then Unite the North American Continent (Central America, Caribbean, Greenland (Iceland to) as States, the whole 9 yards. Lets take care of Us and secure this Land.
🇺🇸 Fort North America 🇺🇸
(the North American Continent)
It’s time for America to divest Europe. Europe is not Our problem.
We said that as we watched the buildup that eventually became WWI – and ultimately had Army boots on the ground on the front lines for the last 37 weeks of that five year long war.
We said that as we watched the six year buildup to and then the beginning of WWII in September 1939. And ultimately found Europe was indeed OUR problem in December 1941.
But we formed NATO and essentially ran it after WWII, because we finally decided isolationism wasn’t going to work and if there was another war, we intended that it would be fought in the Europeans’ streets among their populations – not ours over here at home.
And we sure as hell didn’t say “Europe is not our problem”, when we called them to arms to fight beside us in the Gulf War, and then in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11.
But isolationists will never grow up and recognize any of that. In their fairy tale world, nothing related to our national security or our economic markets can possibly be a problem to us here in America.
Wasn’t Pres. Trump recently threatening to pull the FCC licenses of broadcast channels who choose stories that make him look bad?
Your double-standard is showing, JT, in threats to free speech you rail against.
Also, you yourself have accepted the principle that The People through their elected government can impose standards of decency and national security protection via laws that pertain to media expression. Why do you never talk about how nebulous the line between acceptable and unacceptable use of media under those laws? Are you worried you’ll be tagged a traitor to the free-speech cause by candidly discussing “who decides”?…by admitting how complex a problem we’re facing with borderless, non-moderated media?
Europeans still recall the horrors of WWII and the Holocaust. Perhaps that explains why they are more cautious about “anything goes” political free-speech? They know firsthand how populist, grievance-agitprop was cleverly used by Hitler and Mousselini to erode freedom bit-by-bit over the course of a decade.
If you are telling yourself, “that could never happen here”, I suggest you watch “Nuremberg”. There are illiberal elements in both the U.S. left and right who are today mimicking 1930s fascistic media strategy, whose goal is 1-party monopoly rule, and who would use such power if acquired to strip all opposition of Constitutional rights.
Freedom of thought and conscience while preserving national security, esprit-de-corps, economic prosperity, environmental livability is the high-level goal. It’s NOT absolute freedom of expression which hands over control of the public square to the loudest, most zealous, least civility-bound voices. The line has to be drawn somewhere on styles of expression and content that run counter to our highest-level goals.
Only a naive, theory-blinded intellectual would strip The People of their power to decide when and how indecency, incivility, manipulative inauthenticity, and misanthropic anarchy are to be boxed out of the public square.
Did he follow through? The Europeans ARE censoring citizens. It’s truly quite frightening, especially in the UK and France. The only one keeping Italy from joining the other fascists is Meloni…ironically. Sidebar: The DSA is partly what started Trump down the tariff path. That and the Airbus subsidies. The fight over the latter began during the Ohohbama administration.
The right to free speech is not the same as a right of access to constrained resources such as constitute the broadcast spectrum. As a libertarian (a minarchist, at that) I am not fond of government control of much of anything, but I have difficulty imagining an equitable and workable non-governmental competition for such a resource, given its history. Postulating that necessity, there will inevitably be decisions made about those allocations with which some of us disagree. One could argue with some plausibility that Trump’s threat to FCC licenses for sources with which he disagrees is capricious, but it hardly can be construed as an assault on the First Amendment.
Adding: “Particularly since the internet is now the medium for the majority of political discourse, and it is not subject to FCC licensing”…
pbinca displayed her double standards: Wasn’t Pres. Trump recently threatening to pull the FCC licenses of broadcast channels who choose stories that make him look bad? Your double-standard is showing, JT, in threats to free speech you rail against.
The ones lying to make him look bad while attempting to create false narratives to get Biden re-elected – and after your party insurrection took him out: Harris? The Big Lie: the 2020 Election Was The Most Transparent And Fair In History!
Only a naive, theory-blinded intellectual would strip The People of their power to decide when and how….a woman carries a handgun for self defense.
You despise and hate the Second Amendment, pbinca – you lie, deny, distract and deflect in attacking the Second Amendment… and then pretend that you prize a naive, theory-blinded intellectual purist view of the First Amendment.
Kind of similar to Professor Turley, where the Second Amendment is concerned, pbinca: a pure bred theory-blinded intellectual hypocrite, where the Second Amendment is concerned.
Yes: this is your cue to once again run back to Kalifornia to disappear and regroup before your next appearance.
The “European Values” at issue differ little from those dictated by Hitler, Mussolini and Big Brother. As Europe continues its descent into the savagery of Middle Eastern “cultures” while barring the natives from complaining, an ominous new Dark Age is rising “across the pond.” Good thing that oceans exist.
Denmark acted swiftly to close-off lax immigration some 15 years ago. So, the Europeans have a positive exemplar to follow — except they also have to deal with giving hordes of past immigrants a choice: assimilate or leave.
So true. Very well said, but I don’t believe an ocean is going to be enough distance to keep us safe. We are one election away from the tyranny Europeans are under now. If the Dems take majority in even one house of Congress and then, God forbid, the WH, America is finished and so will the free world for we are the last bastion of freedom. The irony is the projection by the TDS progressives who claim Trump is tyrannical. I haven’t seen anyone arrested yet for memes that make fun of him or Muslims, but we are seeing it in France and the UK.
I don’t question Prof. Turley’s position. There are indeed quite a number of things, including censorship, for which one can and should criticize the EU. I am only surprised that Prof. Turley directs his criticism only against the EU, the oldest ally of the United States. There were times when allies would first criticize adversaries before one criticized allies. I have not seen any articles by Prof. Turley commenting on Free Speech in China or Russia.
I would suggest that the reason Turley focuses on the EU is that it is there that things are changing for the worse. No one looks to Russia or China to be purveyors for free speech. But when you lose Europe you’re losing a continent that once supported free speech.
Spot on. A continent that once supported freedom, except when it didn’t. European nations do not have a history of freedom the way America does. Monarchies (only in recent centuries constitutional monarchies) and fascist and national socialist despots are their historical forms of government. The only nation that comes close is the UK and (1) they are no longer part of the EU and (2) they are no longer a country that can call itself free, not when people are being arrested for voicing unpopular opinions.
The EU is not the “oldest” ally of the US. Far from it. France is. The EU is post-WWII abomination. And the EU is teetering under its own bureaucratic weight and is no friend of America’s except when Putin rattles his saber.
The EU is post-WWII abomination. And the EU is teetering under its own bureaucratic weight and is no friend of America’s except when Putin rattles his saber.
Except when they joined us to fight the DPRK and Communist China in Korea.
Except when some of them joined to fight in Vietnam.
Except when they joined us to fight beside us in our war in Kuwait and Iraq.
Except when they joined us to fight beside us for 20 years in our war in Afghanistan and our unfinished war in Iraq.
It’s a good thing that we aren’t also teetering under our own bureaucratic weight and corruption. If that were true, we’d actually have far more serious problems than Europe picking up Woke, DEI, and virtue signalling from we in America who spawned those schools of political/government thought.
It shocks me how the “America First” crowd have taken terms like ‘censorship’ and cannibilized it to their nefarious purposes. They are convinced that by using that term against the left they have reversed the cushions so that the left now sits in their own piss. Perhaps they are right, since some of us slip deeper into the cushion, but many of us are not fooled at all. We see America First dismantling Radio Free Europe, The Corporate for Public Broadcasting. We see the FCC attacking Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert. We see the National Guard suppressing protestors in DC and Portland and Chicago..anywhere the left speaks out! We see displays in the Smithsonian and Library of Congress dismantled. We see Trumps sinister name erected on the Kennedy Center for the Arts! The EU fact checkers are not the enemy of free speech because responsible journalism is also a human right to uphold. America First is not any sort of proponent of Free Speech whatsoever, don’t kid yourself. The yellow stain on your seat cushion is your own piss, and it hasn’t been immunized! Sit there at your own risk!
All the fact checkers hard core leftists who are democrat activists.
And that’s the funny thing with free speech REALLY being free.
Who the hell decides?
But, isn’t the act of fact checking also a form of free speech.
Example:
I say the sky is blue= Free Speech
You fact check and say ‘it depends on if it is not cloudy’ =Free Speech
The act of fact checking does not infringe on Free Speech.
Yes it does when there are punitive actions taken when someone’s speech or opinions are held to be “misinformation.” The way to have good speech is to have more speech not less. So said my Con Law professor. You can’t seem to get a grip on the fact that people are being punished for unpopular opinions someone–leftists–considers wrong to hold. Holding unpopular opinions or protesting in favor of those opinions are the essence of free speech.
I don’t know of anyone in my neighborhood punished by the European Union. However, down by William’s Gateway Airport they have a warehouse full of ‘illegal immigrants’ imprisoned without due process living in squalor for an indefinite period waiting deportation. Yah, we do that to people.
Operative word: illegal. Trying going to live in Switzerland without proper papers and see how quick you’re deported, regardless of whether you otherwise break the law or not.
Chuck, illegals don’t get full due process and you should know that. If I get a speeding ticket I can’t demand a trial before my peers, legal representation and a right to appeal to higher courts. There are levels of DP and when you are caught being here illegally you get yourself deported with a minimal of hearings and DP. If caught at the border you get zero DP.
Guys like Chuckster want to allow in 10-15 million unvetted, non-English speaking poor people with no skills and no vaccine history over 4 years and then demand a full trial for all these millions of people. That way every time a Dem is in the WH they flood us with illegals and the illegal population grows, grows and grows. Chuck hates America, hates Americans, hates himself and hates his father.
Isn’t it interesting that due process was quickly sidetracked in the case of Capitol rioters, ex-Honduras Presidents, and Senators like George Santos. I guess it all depends on whose butt you are willing to kiss. Upholding the law becomes somewhat murky when the upholder is himself a law breaker and draft dodger. I better keep my nose clean, I’m not that willing to kiss that ripe old butt.
Now, that is a bit disingenuous. I read recently that Mr. Trump has been part of 5,695 total legal actions (lawsuits) in his lifetime, combining cases where he was plaintiff (sued others) and defendant (was sued), including business, personal, and other civil matters. This estimate comes from aggregating multiple legal records and analyses. It would appear he has a sort of suit fetish, what’s a few more?
I’m curious though, when did our nation turn the corner where liberty and justice was not for all?
Sounds like Ellis Island, now a national monument.
Correction: Yah, people do that TO THEMSELVES….when they know the correct methods of respectful entry and choose lawlessness, instead.
Do you lefties EVER take ANY responsibility for ANYthing??? What do you think happens when you put your hand on a hot stove??? No burn? Are the laws of nature reconfigured to reward the hand of the scoundrel?
Am I ‘you lefty’? Or Craekin? I am myself right handed. And a Republican. I do shoot rifles left handed due to my vision, so you got me there. I’m not sure the label applies in the strict sense. I’m not sure if our current President is Left or Right. I think he is in it for himself, which would move him toward the self-center. It depends on which pocket he puts his wallet I think.
Lets add Ourobouros, right-handed-Republican-left-shooter: One can keep bending so far to the right that he ends up left. Who knows what you are. The point, here, was to answer your strange statement:
“…’illegal immigrants’ imprisoned without due process living in squalor for an indefinite period waiting deportation. Yah, we do that to people.”
If indeed you hold Republican values, your above statement betrays you as a leftist. Either that, or you just don’t know who you are.
Am I betrayed, I don’t remember you kissing my cheek (aka Judas). The only cheek kissing I am sensing is the T-Rump. You have free speech, therefore call me leftist, or communist, or radical. Fine, labels are cheap and easily thrown out there. But, I am willing to go beyond my label and seek truth. The fact checkers are zero’d in on that too. We should all be willing to allow the truth be heard. Fact checking is needed in a world filled with hearsay, conspiracy, and outright lies.
You might try fewer sentences and one idea to discuss. Why not start with closing the border?
Actually, I am ok with crossing the borders. I have associates on either side. I love that in Europe one can freely move between countries. Didn’t Ronald Reagan word it well ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!’
It gives me the shivers every time I hear it. Back when the right had integrity and statesmanship.
That much is obvious from what you write. There appears to be no boundary you won’t cross; very typical of people who are unmoored and lack self-respect.
‘Unmoored…lack self respect’…who’s the censor now. Wait, is this my Mom blogging again?
Maybe it should be. She might stop you from embarrassing yourself.
Maybe you are right. Good luck.
@Chuckster tries to justify European censorship which is enjoined by law by comparing it to attempts by some on the right, including Trump and officials. While decrying such attempts, just as Mr Turley has done, Kimmel and Colbert are still in the air spouting their hatred against Trump and conservatives, Radio Free Europe was not serving its purpose and the CPB defunding was a long time coming, the NG is not suppressing protestors anywhere but protecting Federal property and personnel or in the case of DC their mere presence has reduced crime considerably which was its initial purpose. Displays at the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress can arguably be done in the name of adding context to leftist one sided displays. And certainly adding of Trump name to buildings and other things may be grotesque but has nothing to do with the battle for free speech and it can be, as it most probably will, reversed by the next administration.
I for one is certainly happy we have the First Amendment in the Constitution, which in spite of the desire of both the left and the right, is alive and well and will protect us from the censorship laws prevalent in most of the authoritarian world and now in a democratic Europe. Shame on them.
Hmm, a stinky lot of justification going on there! How much censorship are you willing to justify on the right before the left scale is balanced?
One man’s business write-off, savings and reinvestment elsewhere, is another man’s “censorship,” crying over the obsolete.
Try to think critically, man.
* Is it possible that the Kimmel/Colbert cancellation that never-happened was a machination to make you speak and feel so illogically about non-
issues?
* Is it possible that Radio Free Europe is passe in an age of fast Internet?
* Is it possible that the National Guard are not stopping speech, but deterring crime.
* Is it possible that adding the Trump name to a dozen already-named places is a simple honorific that leads nowhere, but to furthering your TDS?
* Is it possible that the indigenous people of Europe are being erased by a body of politicians that are NOT democratic, but despotic?
If..If…If… If Sirhan Sirhan has a squirt gun, he’d been a clown.
IS was the frame, not IF. The inanity of squirt-guns aside, your left-leaning arguments are the ones premised on conditions (not even met).
Can’t you discuss just one thing mentioned? Apparently not. The idea of a squirt gun was more inviting.
I am happy to discuss one thing. But I’m not sure what that one thing is. I’ll put my squirt gun in my pocket so you feel safe. You might notice a bulge, but it shouldn’t get you wet.
“But I’m not sure what that one thing is. “
That uncertainty aligns neatly with your affectations.
You bad girl…are you trying to peek at my affectations again? There are Cougars who’d pay a lot of money for that…
Maybe that line works on 10-12-year-old girls, but adults recognize you vastly overestimate your attributes.
I am sorry that I offended you. I made a lame attempt to add a bit of humor to this string. Please disregard all my posts, or the moderator could delete them.
I disagree with you, but our conversation will not change our opinions. Hopefully you will have enough allies among these comments to make you feel better about yourself and your position. Good luck.
Your comment wasn’t offensive or humorous. At best, one could say it lacked content.
I don’t accept or justify any censorship whether from the left or the right while it seems to me you use any attempt of censorship from the right to justify the many documented attempts to censor social media and cancel culture of the left.
While Trump riles against the media Joe Biden actually used the FBI to threatened with success Twitter and Facebook to toe the government line and he tried to create what I call the “Ministry of Information” with Nina in charge and only after being shown she had engaged in misinformation and disinformation in the past was it called off. HRC called for Europeans to censor X. The left fear of free speech is well documented and it surpasses the right by quite a lot.
The President of the United States has repeatedly called for news reporters to be fired that ask him pointed questinos
The President of the United States has repeatedly called for late night television hosts that criticize him to be fired.
The President of the United States has repeatedly belittled reporters (especially women) that ask him embarrasing questions.
And JT complains about Europe.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh
Yes, being a comedian in the land of the free can leave you feeling like a cabaret artist during the Weimar Republic.
POTUS also has freedom of speech.
He can ask for his firing publicly because he lied.
But he didn’t send anybody to arrest him.
ABC shelved him for a few days, and he came right back.
In Europe, they put you in jail for funny memes.
And you think this compares somehow?
C’mon man!
Yes I am concerned when the President of the United States pressures (successfully in the case of Colbett) to get someone off the air he dislikes. If you don’t find this scary. I can only assume you are part of the fascist right that wants trump to have complete control.
No thank you. trump? obama? bush? biden? none of them should have this much power. And if you let trump have the power, the next President has the same power.
Think of it as a Sister Souljah moment.
Funny, I just saw Colbert last week with his bleep out rant against the President of the US.
Yes I am concerned when the President of the United States pressures (successfully in the case of Colbett) to get someone off the air he dislikes.
I’m concerned that your standards didn’t make an appearance back when a President named Obama successfully had an actual comic – NOT a political communist refugee station for Democrats like Colbert – Roseanne Barr removed because he felt offended at her comments about Valerie Jarratt? One phone call to the president of the broadcast company that employed her was all it took.
I can only assume you’re one of the Democrat police state fascists who were absolutely delighted at the years when Democrats were doing that, taking control of social media and using them to do censoring they couldn’t get away with.
BTW… the world is watching with interest to hear you provide proof that it was Trump who engineered Colbert losing his show – as opposed to the fact his ratings were crap and he was costing his employer a fortune while he served as a virtue signalling flag and provided a safe space for Democrats with TDS.
Do you even know what “fascist” means? Do you know the history of the word?
EXACTLY! You hit the nail on the head that all the TDS posters missed.
In Europe, they put you in jail for funny memes. And you think this compares somehow?
That’s true. What’s also true is that here in America we jailed a man for making a meme about Clinton during the 2016 election campaign.
C’mon man – your memory can’t be that short!!!!
Despite whatever and whomever Donald Trump criticizes, no one has been charged with a spoken or thought crime as occurs in Europe and Great Britain. That’s the difference.
And have they been fired?
Oh boo hoo that he repeatedly this and that and called reporters names. Big deal. Did he throw them in jail?
What about the Imran Ahmed guy?
A “judge” halted his deportation.
Can he be deported or not, legally?
Anyone?
Off topic story that further illustrates the idiocy:
For the holiday, I visited my family in an uber blue state. On the East side, where all the affluent white people live, was teeming with mass-produced ‘resist’ signs.
We decided, as an experiment, to drive around little Mexico on the West side (which is actually quite extensive in this particular city) to see if it was the same. The number of signs there: zero. Zero. ZERO. And we really tried to find them.
The hubris and projection of the modern left are also breaking the scales. I fail to see how that level of unconsciousness is any different than that displayed by the European populace as Hitler or Mussolini began to steamroll them.
To quote your orange god…
“Quiet, Quiet Piggy”
That pretty much says it all.
Other than the fact that we’re having a group Democrat Grindr date after we finished commenting here. All Biden Birthing Boys who are Tranny Furries are welcome.
“I fail to see how that level of unconsciousness is any different than that displayed by the European populace as Hitler or Mussolini began to steamroll them.”
There is no difference. They are eating the pablum fed to them and will follow their dear leaders off the cliff as did the Europeans in the 1920s and 30s.
EU. Work makes free. You’re not censoring Americans of our Business.