In the classic movie comedy, A Fish Called Wanda, John Cleese lamented, “do you have any idea what it’s like being English? Being so correct all the time, being so stifled by this dread of, of doing the wrong thing.” Now 86, Cleese has a more pressing concern about being English: whether his exercise of free speech will make him a criminal in his own country.
In a recent interview, Cleese observed that the government’s new speech standards would classify many citizens, including himself, as presumptive criminals for criticizing certain policies. He observed that”As I am an Islamosceptic, I’m now worried that the Labour government may categorise me as a terrorist…”
The government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has continued its headlong plunge into the criminalization of speech. The guidelines include a section on cultural nationalism, stating that such views are now the subject of government crackdowns. To even argue that Western culture is under threat from mass migration or a lack of integration by certain groups is being treated as a dangerous ideology.
Cleese responded by saying, “I’m clearly a terrorist, so I’m afraid they are going to have to arrest me.”
The tragedy is that this is no wicked Monty Python joke. Cleese has every reason to be concerned.
As I discuss in Rage and the Republic, the United Kingdom has eviscerated free speech in the name of social cohesion and order.
For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests.
A man was convicted of sending a tweet while drunk, referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.”
A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing, Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target of Ireland’s proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. It covers the possession of material deemed hateful. The law is a free speech nightmare. The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”
The Brock case proved, as feared, a harbinger of what was to come. Two years ago, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, vowed to crack down on people “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” That includes what she calls extreme misogyny.
Now the UK’s most famous writers and comedians believe that they can be arrested under the country’s draconian speech laws from JK Rowling to John Cleese.
That leaves free speech much like Cleese’s famous parrot. The British government and its supporters can claim evidence of life or just “resting,” but it is in fact “bleedin’ demised…passed on! … no more! … ceased to be! … expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” a New York Times Bestseller.
“denying or grossly trivializing genocide”? Looks like you can arrest most of the Muslims in Great Britian for their holocaust denial.
and their propensity to commit genocide.
There it is! I love it when you true Turley disciples rear your heads and declare your devotion to xenophobic, racist, white nationalistic views. It’s so much more honest.
“There it is! I love it when you true Turley disciples rear your heads and declare your devotion to xenophobic, racist, white nationalistic views. It’s so much more honest.”
Was the poster wrong about the FACTS ?
Regardless, clueless idiot that you are you miss the point.
Virtually every single group is WRONG about some, possibly many issues.
You are a brain dead idiot if you do not think that Islam is a violent, racist, even genocidal religion.
are all Muslims today rushing out to commit genocide ? No, only a few are – most of the conflicts in the mideast are tribal, racial and genocidal.
Ignoring israel the conflicts in lebanon, and Syria, are between Sunni and Shite muslims, kurds ,Alawites. christians, Druze, …
Islam is incredibly sexist, and homophobic, and white nationalism does not hold a candle to the desire of muslims to take over the world.
The POINT which you miss is that you do not get to pick which group with bad views you allow to have free speech.
While SOME are looking to keep people who are not from england out – and even get rid of those who did not enter legally.
There is racism and deeply offensive views on All sides.
You do not get to choose Which racist sexist genocideal views get expressed.
But the people of a country DO get to decide who gets let in.
“are all Muslims today rushing out to commit genocide ? “
Not all Muslims are rushing out to commit genocide, but the danger lies in how easily calls for violence can spread through religious authority. When an imam commands action, even peaceful Muslims may feel bound to follow, and many do. Islam becomes most dangerous when faith, politics, and obedience fuse into one. Those who practice Islam without politics or violent obedience to the Imam are friends of peace.
A visibly shaken Donald J. Trump told reporters on Thursday that the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (formerly Prince Andrew) set a dangerous precedent of pedophiles facing consequences.
“King Charles released a statement where he said no one is above the law,” he said. “That was a horrible thing to say.”
Calling Andrew’s arrest “disgraceful,” Trump said it had made him “rethink the whole idea of becoming king.”
“If you can be a member of the royal family and still get arrested, what’s the point in having a crown?” he said. “You’re better off just having your own supreme court.”
What’s that got to do with Cleese?
FBI Director Kash Patel Says Bureau Uncovered Antifa Funding Sources
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/fbi-director-kash-patel-says-bureau-uncovered-antifa-funding-sources-5987716?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge
Can you possibly stay on topic please.
The topic is a completely pointless, platitudinous and gratuitous attempt at self-promotion by Turley for his sadly pathetic little book.
That’s all he does these days.
OK Hillary.
Then go elsewhere.
While I do not accept your premise.
Even if True – there is absolutely nothing wrong with promotion.
You do not watch a show, or listen to music because you searched the universe for things that you like.
Most of the choices we make are because they were brought to our attention and THEN we decided to try.
If we want lies – we have AI for that – we do not need you.
Sad to see these events in the UK. Also hard to believe. They were as proud of their free speech as any nation and quite frankly were proud with putting it all out there in public. Sometimes actually more brazen than in the US.
The nation is diminished by the present government action. I hope they turn it around because their unbridled input on the need for democracy in this world is paramount.
They are not perfect but they have put their nation in peril on many occasions to protect democracy and free speech only to now see it threatened from within!
We all need a large amount of free speech even if it comes with a British accent.
“We all need a large amount of free speech …” So free speech is allotted in amounts? Its absolute. Not a bit for me but two bits for thee.
You realize you rewrote Turley’s opinion?
Anonymous 9:18 AM- maybe that is because I agree with Professor Turley. Having been to the UK many times, I always enjoyed their boisterous speech. Free or otherwise.
GEB,
Well said.
I like the free speech with the British accent part! Clever!
You’re easily impressed then.
What are you the local a nursing mother, soothing egos?
Anonymous 9:54 AM- You are easily aroused to spittle and are becoming repetitive. Obviously your AI (sic) is not reviewing your previous bloviating before it prints out your next note
Re: ‘sad to see these events’. The British have sadly opened the door to a culture, which historically has sought to subsume other nations and make it their own. In the past, they have had some success. They will not relinquish that task without a fight, and not just the fight in words, but in deeds. If the British fail to take up the gauntlet in this, they are forever lost. In New York City, the other day, a member of the Muslim community observed that Islam was coming to New York. In that dogs repulse them, they would seek a law which would prohibit the residents of the city from keeping dogs as domestic pets. In other words, read the city of same. If one reads into Marco Rubio’s words, it should be clear that’s such a mindset, and anything else of that ilk which it seeks to foster, shall not prevail in these United States of America.
We should repeal Section 230, reverting to the system that worked so well for free-speech-with-civility (self-moderation) before social media. If internet platforms are reclassified as publishers, they will find it necessary to replace algorithms with humans possessing common-sense judgment of right vs. wrong.
Doing that would show the Brits an alternative to police-state definitions of dangerous information, which inevitably become politicized, arbitrary and capricious.
Control of what is acceptable behavior in the public square must be widely decentralized and held in the hands of millions of society’s mature, responsible information concentrators. So what if unhinged zealots, misanthropes and juvenile provocateurs lose their public voice? They can learn skills of civility and comity, then then be able to gain a public audience.
Somehow or another, the public square must uphold standards — mainly authenticity, quest for truth over fabrication, and an atmosphere of trust. Americans are blessed to have 1A there to prevent government from policing the infospace. Before the internet, we had a private system of upholding standards. Social media ruined that system, not intentionally, but inadvertantly by circumventing the stabilizing role played by print editors and TV/radio producers, replacing them with addiction-algorithms.
The way back is to repeal 230. This will force human judgment to be put back in the driver’s seat with all publishers.
Yes, that will cause some down-scaling and decentralization. But Americans never asked to have just a few media bohemoths like Alphabet, Meta and X mediating the information we consume. Better it’s 25 or 100, or 1000 entities.
That way, none can aspire to overpowering the country through control over information.
Let’s show the Brits a more sensible approach, one that prizes civility, responsibility and open-mindedness, not abandoning long-held societal standards to make room for emerging tech.
The way back is to repeal 230. I like it. But what happens to free speech when media sites start curbing comments at their will? The politics will still be there.
Show them? We already told them. The thing is to fight the DSA. Lawfare at its best, when it really counts. For everyone, worldwide.
All we need to do is Clarify S230.
Publishers has a choice
editorial control of content AND tort liability for content.
The same constraints on content control as the first amendment allows govenrment in return for tort protection.
I would not repeal S230. But I would clarify it.
If you want the protection from Defamation that comes with S230, then your ability to censor content is constrained in the same way as that of the government.
What we do not want is the power to censor without constraint or consequences.
Cleese, the same wasted old comedian is an admitted terrorist in his homeland and soon to charged and convicted of terrorism. And yet he calls Trump and Americans Nazis?
And he calls us Nazis.
He can eat some crow
Is it halal?
Immigration is clearly being used as a weapon against Western nations. The gaslighting about “climate refugees” is pure nonsense. Government prohibitions against speech prevent citizens from sharing ideas and refining their understanding of what is happening and why. Without freedom of speech people are inhibited from finding like-minded fellow citizens, organizing, and taking action.
The US and the UK are not identical cases but there are some parallels. We see the attacks, we know something is deeply wrong, but enough citizens are not yet fully awake. Will we wake up before it’s too late?
Can The Ministry of Thought really arrest high members of the Ministry of Silly Walks? It just doesn’t seem right.
In all seriousness the fascist approach of the UK government while coddling Islamofascism is telling. It’s a level of self hate that only the worst leftists can claim. The UK’s justice system is acting as modern day kapos for radical Islamism. Stockholm syndrome?
Nope. Just the latest version of communism.
It’s easy for Americans to misunderstand the significance of our Revolution and our founding as a government by the people and for the people. But even before the American colonialists sought independence, there were members of Britain’s Parliament who wanted what we were fighting for. William Pitt, the Elder, for whom Pittsburgh is named, stood up in Parliament and rallied on behalf of warrants for searches of one’s home. “A poor man’s home and shutters may rattle in the wind, the rain may come in, but the king of England may not, save but for a warrant!” This was one of the grievances of the American colonialists. British authorities were free to enter any home at any hour for any reason.
England taught its colonies a lot, and for that, Americans should be thankful. Now, it is time for us to return the favor. The U.K. is in need of a makeover to recover its sanity. The protection of and fealty to the monarch, for which so many of its statutes, customs, and traditions derive, is over. Yesterday’s arrest of former Prince Andrew is a good start. It’s time to pack up the living museum and move on. The big question is, can a government created to be led by a monarch be transformed peacefully into one created to be led by the people? In other words, if you remove the king from the chessboard, who is in charge? Is it game over? Must it always be game over?
The founders of the Unite States posed the same question 250 years ago and came up with a good answer. To our British parents, it is time, gentlemen, time. Better late than never!
JJC,
Great comment and thank you for that bit of history.
However, I think you last lines might be more apt as to our British brethren, it is time for them to stand up to this tyranny.
I have noted as of late, a former British COL has stated publicly that a civil war is coming to the UK and perhaps the EU over the immigration issue.
Europe’s Civilizational War Will Be Bloody
“It seems as if every month a new story comes out of Britain warning about the likelihood of future civil war. Retired colonel Richard Kemp recently gave a television interview during which he warned that the “Islamification” of the United Kingdom would lead to “inevitable conflict.” Several British academics specializing in the preconditions for civil conflict, including professors David Betz and Michael Rainsborough, have argued the same point.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/02/europe_s_civilizational_war_will_be_bloody.html
How is someone’s opinion article be a source. You realize that opinion are not fact.
Opinions, especially AT, is used to lure the simple minded and unwitting into a false mindset. An irreality.
FYI, opinion is not reality. Its propaganda. In your case the extreme right sort.
Dumb. Good opinions are necessary when there aren’t enough adequate facts. That is when we rely on credible people. For example, on this blog, an anonymous person has no credibility, while one with a unique name and icon might be considered credible.
S. Meyer
You may well be correct that a few commenters who post here with a name and icon are credible, but that only applies if they also are actually free thinkers, capable of rational independent thought. Unfortunately, many commenters here with a name and unique icon are mere “followers” who simply “follow” the philosophy and thinking of others, such as Milton Friedman. Anyone who “follows” Milton Friedman, for instance, can be dismissed out of hand.
These people have to be told what to think. They are completely incapable of rational independent thought. They simply spout what they have heard from the individuals that they “follow” as if they are revealing great fundamental truths.
These people come here daily to this worthless blog in order to be instructed by Turley as to how they should think. They are completely reliant on others to tell them how to formulate an opinion. They have never had an original thought in their entire lives. They are mere “followers”, non-thinking drones, parasites on the body politic.
It is really rather pitiful that these poor unthinking people actually think that they have any credibility whatsoever.
You are a nutcase. A good while back, I called another anonymous creature the same. He left with his tail between his legs. That was Sigmund Fraud. Good to see you again. Remove the cigar from your a$$.
Sounds like you have abandoned Milton as your philosophical guru, and you have now turned to Sigmund Fraud, whoever he may be.
That may be wise. Clearly Milton has let you down.
Hopefully Sigmund can actually help you to formulate an independent thought.
Yes, you are the nutcase Fraud.
Does not sound like you are off to a good start with your new philosophical guru.
Insulting Sigmund from the get go does not augur well for a good, fruitful relationship.
Probably not the wisest move if you intend to “follow” him.
Nutcase.
This endless repetition of “nutcase” is a little concerning.
Is this what you learn from “following” Milton ??
If so, you should definitely reconsider your choice of philosophical mentors.
I suspect that you are actually attempting to branch out in a solo effort of independent thought, but it is clearly not going well.
I have heard good things about Sigmund. If you are dissatisfied with “following” Milton, perhaps you should switch to “following” Sigmund, but try to avoid insulting him as you have been doing. I’m sure he will forgive you and allow you to “follow” him if you apologize for the insults. He is quite forgiving in that respect. He knows that those with deficient intellectual capacity often resort to childish insults, and he is quick to forgive, just as a parent always forgives a toddler for their errant behavior.
Nutcase.
Before criticizing another, get your facts straight and then develop an understanding of what those facts mean. In your prior claim, you didn’t understand what it meant to be a possession of the Crown and not an integral part of the kingdom
Nutcase.
Again with the “nutcase”. I really wish you would make the effort to come up with a little variety with your insults.
Variety is the spice of life after all.
I know it is a real stretch for someone of your limitations, but you could at least give it the old college try as they say.
It would be a lot more enjoyable for me if you could at least make the effort.
Nutcase.
All opinions rely on Fact – some more than others.
All opinions are not equal.
I disagree with the conclusions of the article. Just as I do not think we will see a bloody civil war in the US.
The bitter conflicts – here and there will be resolved MOSTLY peacefully.
Sweden and Denmark have flipped from the most open to immigration to net deporters.
That was actually inevitable. The public backlash was going to flip the govenrment.
Instead in both countries the left leaning social democrats flipped their position on immigration to hold power.
We are seeing the same conflict throughout Europe – either Reform UK, National Rally France and the Afd will be elected eventually,
or the left leaning governments will flip their positions on issues like immigration.
It is likely that those in power will flip if immigrations is the only issue that the oposition has.
It is likely that the opposition will gain power – if immigration is one of many issues that the people are at odds with those in power.
But most of this will be relatively bloodless.
Bit of history? Its his less than accurate version of it.
Just because some old fart Colonel (for those of you who can’t spell it or write it) is a typical war monger, itching to relive the days of British imperialism, and sacrifice the lives of the young for his ego trip. If he wants a war, I say round up all the old vets in the UK and let them do their war. They’ve had a life.
Actually read the article.
“No government,” Kemp argues, “has the guts to stop…the Islamification of the U.K.” Consequently, ordinary Brits now need to prepare for the likelihood of “civil war in Europe.” Describing the looming conflict in the U.K. as a far more serious and deadly situation than what gripped Northern Ireland for decades, Kemp predicts that the coming civil war will involve “indigenous British and some of the immigrant population and the British government all on three different sides fighting against each other.”
That looks like civil war. NOT British imperialism. Do you strive to be this ignorant?
Do you strive to be this ignorant? Obviously you do. Its an old senile man’s reality. He’s senile, can’t you figure that out?
Please tell me you stopped reading comic books centuries ago.
And the other two professors mentioned in the article, are they also senile? You do strive to be ignorant.
The authors are to a large extent irrelevant. It is a FACT that mass islamic immigration into Europe has caused a huge political backlash and that the leadership of European countries will either shift positions or lose power to opponents.
To the extent the authors ar relevant it is only in their assessment of “what comes next”
In Denmark and Sweden the most pro immigrant governments have switched on a dime to now pushing mass deportation,
In these instances social democrats read the writing on the wall and chose to remain in power.
We will have to see whether other center left governments chose to change their positions to hold power or whether their right wing opositions takes power from them.
But one way or the other the politics of Europe like the US are becoming anti-immigration.
If anything the problems in Europe are worse.
The US has a history of being able to assimilate other cultures.
We already have a large hispanic population, and hispanics more than any other culture are good at assimilation.
Many Mideastern Islamic cultures are NOT. Further the absence of birthright citizenship in Europe means these immigrants feel more tied to their country of origen than the country they migrated to.
And despite decades of holier than thou attitude – Europeans suck at assimilation.
The US under Trump is going to get rid of very large numbers of criminal illegal immigrants,
as well as SOME of the millions of Biden Surge. But there is zero possibility we will get rid of more than a fraction of the 35-45M illegal immigrants in the US today.
The US will eventually come to terms with those illegal immigrants who remain.
Europe is having far greater problems with that.
Further demographically – the US needs a small stream of immigrants to make up for our demographic shortfall.
Europe needs Far more immigrants than the US, and is far more resistant.
Europe is going to be a mess for decades.
How do you know he is senile? Did you examine him? Do you have the professional credentials to make that kind of exam and mental assessment? Did you come up with that assessment after watching the TV interview or read the article?
ATS – while I disagree with the Colonel’s conclusions
The conflicts he is citing are very real and have already disrupted politics and power THROUGHOUT Europe.
The only question is what comes next and how violent that will be.
That’s exactly right jjc. And one of the greatest unintended lessons Britain taught the colonies was independence itself, through salutary neglect.
For generations, the colonies largely governed themselves. They ran their own assemblies, managed their own affairs, enforced their own laws, and learned to function without direct daily control from London. They developed the habits of self-reliance long before they declared the principle of it.
By the time Britain attempted to reassert centralized authority after the Seven Years’ War, the colonists were no longer dependent subjects in practice. They were already self-governing people in reality. The Declaration did not create that condition. It recognized it.
In many ways, Britain did not lose the colonies because it oppressed them too early. It lost them because it neglected them long enough for them to learn they did not need a ruler to govern themselves.
That may be one of history’s greatest unintended lessons. Freedom, once practiced, is very difficult to surrender.
now I know where you are lifting your sermons. From Encyclopedia Britannica which talks about Britain, the colonies, and specifically, salutary neglect.
Salutary neglect is not an obscure idea pulled from an encyclopedia. It is a well documented historical reality examined by Middlekauff, Wood, Morgan, and Bailyn, all of whom explain how Britain’s long period of neglect allowed the colonies to develop the habits and institutions of self government long before independence was declared. Their works provide a much fuller picture than a summary reference.
Britain did not suddenly face rebellion. It faced a population that had already learned to govern itself.
Relying on an encyclopedia alone might explain the confusion, but the historical record itself is quite clear.
Do you think there is anything in Britanica that does not come from elsewhere ?
Regardless, NO ONE hears ideas are NEW.
Some of us have better exposure to the brilliant minds of the past than others.
Good point.
Excellent
Mr. Turley, I have listened to your interviews and read your pieces (and books) for many years now. Your voice and opinions are a valued part of the public dialogue. However, I feel the need to finally comment on your continuing habit of inserting your personal views into the issue at hand, e.g. “While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful.” This habit diminishes your position on any given issue and is wholly unnecessary. If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, please guard against this habit and remember the name of your blog – Res ipsa loquitur.
I see nothing wrong with the professor’s “personal views” in the sentence you quoted. It is his blog and his opinions. Full stop. And he did qualify his statement saying “…while most of us…”
What I do believe it wrong with his blog is how the comment section is set up with people able to change their moniker and email addresses willy-nilly, with so many commenters calling themselves “anonymous.”
people able to change their moniker and email addresses willy-nilly, with so many commenters calling themselves “anonymous.”….. just like you do Mary, or whoever you are.
You obviously do not comprehend that you are anonymous. That said. No one here is calling themselves “Anonymous”, its the site’ s default setting.
Now, here’s another point you fail to comprehend. Focus on the words, not the moniker. In your mind, its more important to know who said what than the content. Geezzz….
Mary, your comment is perfect. The “Anonymous” fiasco almost ruins the comments section.
The hullbobby definitely ruined the comment section. Mary, he’s the source of a malignant hate speech here.
HullBobby and Mary,
I agree. Sometimes it is oh-so tedious to have to scroll past all the annony moronic comments.
Yeah, you’re referring to hullbobby’s?
You waited many years to comment, and this is what you came up with? A criticism of Turley, merely offering the widely held opinion that Nazism is “repellent and hateful”, on his own blog. I would suggest waiting a few more to make your next comment.
I’d like to echo the commenter who finds the moniker process annoying. I’d like to know, even if only by pseudonym, who is saying what so dialogues are actually possible. I’d like to know why Turley uses this moniker system. Surely the platform could be otherwise.
Its a public forum… it what’s being said, not who said it. Focus on the content not the monikers. How is that so hard?
:Its a public forum… it what’s being said, not who said it. Focus on the content not the monikers. How is that so hard?”
False, Few of us have the time to check every factual claim made here – and here are LOTS of false ones.
WE credit those who post under and ID for their history of correct posts.
This is called reputation.
You are free to post as anonymous as you say. But you are not entitled to the same presumption of accuracy and truthfulness that you would have if you post under a name AND establish a reputation for accuracy and truthfulness.
Further alot of what is posted is opinion. Again – who cares about th opinion of someone who posts anonymously.
While those who post under a name build a reputation, and we weigh their posts accordingly.
Of course you can post under a name, lie through your teeth and post opinions that are nonsense – and you will destroy the credibility of that name.
A large percent of anonymous posters here are people who destroyed their credibility when using a name.
They are losing nothing by not establishing a reputation.
Regardless, if you post as anonymous – you should not expect people to take you seriously. Or beleive you. Or possibly even read you.
Meisha,
I agree, but I think the professor prefers the lest limiting of access to the comments section in the name of free speech.
However, as I have mentioned in the past, I would not mind if there were a pay to comment like paradigm with ALL the funds going to scholarship like fund for socio-economic challenged high school students. All students of a certain lower tax bracket could enter a essay on the Constitution or related subject. The winner gets a monetary prize, all paid by those of us who subscribe to the good professor’s blog. Those monies could be used for higher ed, trade school, other training e.g. computer boot camp.
We could still use our current moniker/handle but on the back end be linked to a email address or payment system to verify we are who we are.
How do you know what the prof. wants?
Pay? Well, you may not realize it (In fact, I know you don’t) that’s its a form of censorship and discriminatory for those without a payment a credit card. I can see you thought that out really thoroughly.
And why should commenters pay for someone’s high school kids when its already a taxpayer’s service?
And I might add, you’re, ironically you’re the one here bragging nonstop about how rich you are and all the houses you have. Well, sell them, and start your own blog.
At what point did I say “credit card?” There is PayPal, Venmo and other services that do not require a credit card. I can see you have not really thought my comment through and just jump to conclusions.
The pay to comment would a form of charity, provided by us, the paying subscribers and the good professor. For that, I would gladly pay to comment. For charity.
I have never said nor bragged about being rich. I have noted that while I am not college educated, I have the good sense to make smart choices in life to get to a comfortable place in life. Nor have I ever said I owned more than one home. That would be you, again, jumping to conclusions without evidence or facts.
UF – if you are rich, if you have done well you have EVERY right to brag about it.
I have said alot about myself here. But I have tried to avoid making apeals to my own authority.
It is one thing to say I know something about due dilligence – because I run a due dilligence business,
It is another to say “you should listen to me because My IQ is stellar”
But a persons success is a measure of their credibility.
You seem to be under the misconception that you have a right to comment here on the good professor’s blog. You do not. It is a privilege he allows. He could have Darren turn off the comments section at any time. You will likely whine and cry about how the good professor is a advocate of free speech but then by turning off the comments section, he censors you.
Why dont you start your own blog?
“How do you know what the prof. wants?”
Because 70% of his posts are about free speech.
“Pay? Well, you may not realize it (In fact, I know you don’t) that’s its a form of censorship and discriminatory”
Of course it is – life discriminates – get over it.
It is government that may not discrimintate – and only for a limited set of reasons.
Am I required to hire an engineer with an IQ of 90 ?
One of the problems with the left is it bandies about a bunch of words as evil based on their common connotation not their denotation or meaning.
All discrimination is not bad. Most discrimination is necescary.
“for those without a payment a credit card. ”
While I do not support turning this blog into a pay to comment section.
That does not mean there is anything wrong with that.
If you do not wish to pay – go elsewhere.
“I can see you thought that out really thoroughly.”
No all you have done is demonstrated the inability to think critically.
“And why should commenters pay for someone’s high school kids”
Because they want to.
“when its already a taxpayer’s service?”
Should not be. It is not moral to use force to take peprty from others to pay for something YOU want.
It is 100% moral for people to chose to pay to provide something for someone else – even as a cost to comment.
“And I might add, you’re, ironically you’re the one here bragging nonstop about how rich you are and all the houses you have.”
What has that got to do with anything ?
In defense of Turley, it’s his blog and his opinion. He is not subject to the lofty standards of the NYT, committed to absolute truth in all they say and without opinion.
Sounds like Secretary Rubio needs to remember not to give blunt speeches in England lest his remarks trigger the local constables.
John Cleese is small potatoes when compared with the likes of William Shakespeare, who would certainly be in prison if he were alive and writing today – and then England had a monarchy.
A formerly great culture, the English. Are they dying or dead? Even the French may mourn the passing.
And ole Will S. wasn’t an admitted terrorist.
Here’s what Shakespeare actually wrote about the necessity of welcoming immigrants to England in his play “Sir Thomas More”
“Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,
Their babies at their backs and their poor luggage,
Plodding to th’ ports and coasts for transportation……Would you be pleased,
To find a nation of such barbarous temper,
That, breaking out in hideous violence,
Would not afford you an abode on earth?”
Just a thought – but you might consider actually reading Shakespeare. It might open your world-view a bit…
Just a thought, you might try and understand old English before you twist it into neo Marxist ideology. Might open your worldview a bit …
How many muslim’s were invading England in 1590 ?
The antagonist of free speech is those who have a need for government to control the speech of others with whom they disagree. For those not young enough to remember the “Days of Rage”, a good read is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Rage). Protests were against the US involvement in the Vietnam war, college campuses being overtaken by youthful mobs, etc.
The US should consider sending the UK a note offering to take free speech prisoners out of their jails and to give them TPS refuge in our country. We should also declare all officials involved in this repugnant censorship to be persona non grata in the US.
Why should US taxpayers pay for them? Why should we pay for the Ukraine war?
Its not our business.
I didn’t say they would be given anything for free, just that we would give them refuge so they could engage in free speech. We have been a refuge for many who were facing imprisonment from totalitarian regimes. This is a tradition we should continue with prisoners of conscience from the UK.
Just so long as these refugees are white – like those from S. Africa.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not white.
Ceasar Milan is not white.
Jackie Chan and Bruce lee are not white.
Sammy Sossa, and Roberto Clemene are not white.
Carlos Santana is not white.
Gloria Estafan is not white.
Christiane Amanpour
Oscar de la Renta
Iman
M.I.A.
Ilhan Omar
Andy Garcia
….
Offering to take … refuge… strictly implies paying for an immigrant. In your mind, we invite them and they then automatically flourish with just a 100 pounds in their pocket and don’t require government services. Or are you willing to house and feed them? Get them a job?
“Offering to take … refuge… strictly implies paying for an immigrant”
Strictly it does NOT.
Sometimes it does – but often is not always.
Americans said that between September 1, 1939 and December 7, 1941. It was Europe’s business, until it became ours.
No they did not. There was a wide spread anti-war sentiment in the USA then. So were supposed to invade the UK and save them from themselves?
This nationalww2museum.org.:
Antiwar sentiment in the USA in 1940 was strong and centered around a desire to avoid direct involvement in World War II, despite growing concerns about Nazi Germany. The dominant isolationist movement, exemplified by the America First Committee founded in September 1940, argued that the U.S. should focus on its own defense and avoid aiding Britain, fearing such support would lead to war. Prominent figures like Charles Lindbergh promoted the view that the U.S. was safe from invasion and should not intervene in European conflicts.
“Toxic ideology” is not an objective standard. It is a label applied by those who hold power. If the people exercised their sovereign authority, they could just as easily identify the government’s ideology as toxic. The difference is enforcement. Whoever controls power defines the crime. That is precisely why natural rights must exist independent of government.
“If the people exercised their sovereign authority, ” What a heap of …
Sounds like Kamala Harris’ speech writer.
OLLY,
Well said. It is the people in power whom determines what speech is “toxic.” They are the ones who enforce it. What will they deem as “toxic” next?
Sadly ironic, they fought against this kind of fascism against the Nazis.
Upstate, that question has an answer that is easily knowable. What concerns me most isn’t just what’s happening in Britain. It’s that it takes 150 to 500 comments to even get to the root issue. These rights are pre-political. More than that, they’re pre-civilizational. Government didn’t create them. Civilization didn’t create them. They exist before both.
There should be no debate necessary about whether government has the authority to criminalize lawful speech. That question was settled the moment free people established government to protect rights, not define them. Yet what always happens in threads like this is predictable. The discussion shifts into teams, exceptions, and hypotheticals. The common ground doesn’t move toward securing rights more firmly. It slowly moves toward accepting carve-outs, conditions, and justifications for infringement.
That’s how liberty erodes. Not all at once, but by gradually redefining rights from something government is forbidden to violate into something government is allowed to manage. The real danger isn’t the existence of authoritarian policy. It’s when people forget that government has no rightful authority to decide which rights to honor and which to suspend.
I disagree with you “Olly.” You preach to others with comments like “The common ground doesn’t move toward securing rights more firmly. It slowly moves toward accepting carve-outs, conditions, and justifications for infringement.”
Isn’t that what the Supreme Court has been doing since the get go? Looking at legislative history, examining examples of interpretation and factual differences in prior cases, and determining if exceptions apply according to the FACTS of a particular caSe?
“That question was settled the moment free people established government to protect rights, not define them.”
Nope. Government and courts (part of government) do BOTH. In the famous “shouting fire! in a theater” case, the defendant Schenk argued Free Speech under the First Amendment. The court roughly said, “If speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it actually will result in a crime, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from government action.” So the court DISTINGUISHED what was protected and what was not, your “carve-outs, conditions, and justifications for infringement.”
If you try to say, well, you were talking about the thread here and not court decisions, you also are on the wrong foot because no one here has the authority to change law or court decisions.
I understand your point about courts distinguishing facts and applying exceptions. Of course courts deal with real-world conflicts. But there is a difference between policing imminent harm and redefining the right itself based on shifting political standards.
This is really about the Overton window. That window moves. What a society considers protected speech today can slowly become conditional tomorrow. And when that window shifts, the public begins treating foundational rights as flexible rather than fixed.
That’s where Lincoln’s Fragment on the Constitution matters. He described the Declaration’s principles as the apple of gold and the Constitution as the frame of silver. The frame was made to protect and preserve the apple, not replace it. The natural right is the core. The structure exists to secure it.
If the frame keeps moving while we stop paying attention to the apple, eventually the apple is no longer centered in the frame at all. You still have courts. You still have legal process. But the underlying principle that gives the system its legitimacy has drifted.
So yes, courts interpret law. But interpretation must remain anchored to the principle that rights precede government. Once the public begins debating whether the right itself is subject to ideological approval, the Overton window has already shifted. And when that happens, what you see through the window contains less and less of the very rights the system was designed to secure.
That’s the concern.
Notice all the authoritarianism in Europe is from the left.
Uh, no. Check out Victoria Orban in Hungary, the right wing party AfD in Germany and others.
If you don’t like what other countries are doing, don’t go to other countries. See that was easy.
You didn’t deny the authoritarianism. You accepted it and advised avoidance. “Go somewhere else” is not a defense of liberty. It is an admission that liberty no longer governs there.
How many authoritarians are in power in Europe? So lefties can’t be authoritarians?
“While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful…” Why should anyone feel repelled? Brock is on to something.
Seems to me, that Islamists feel that westerners (and their our dogs) are a threat based on an old book that orders them to destroy nonbelievers. But a single old white man with Nazi junk is a threat all muslims? So muslims publicly project an violent attitude and actions of Nazis, and they are allowed to express that publicly. But not Whities in private.
There it is! I’m always appreciative when the true Turley reader rears her or his head. ‘Neo-Nazism’? “Sounds good to me!” ‘Racism’? “I’m on board!” ‘Xenophobia’, you say? “Count me in!” Thank you for showing us all the true colors of the typical Turley disciple.
Turley disciple… and yet you’re hearing showing your true colors just like a Turley disciple.
Meanwhile, here in America, the Secretary of Defense and DOJ tried to prosecute / demote / punish congresswomen and men for exercising their 1A rights by saying that those in the military did not have to follow illegal orders. Still waiting for Professor Turley to do a deep dive on that one.
1A huh.
Most of us find their views repellent and hateful.
You may find them repellent and hateful – although their advice literally is no different to what everyone in the military takes an oath to do – but it’s still constitutionally protected speech. Why do you guys hate America and the Constitution so much?
Hell Mr. Big Brains, no one said they hate the big C., only that they DID NOT LIKE THEIR VIEWS, nothing was about their nationality.
Promoting insubordination in the ranks is not covered by the First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and petition for redress of grievances.
Got proof?
Telling troops they don’t have to obey orders is what they did. That was the gist of the very comments you were referencing. A key point is that they couldn’t point to any specific order that they considered illegal and couldn’t tell us which one they think did not have to be obeyed. So it was just instigation to question orders in general.
Exactly right. Those Senators weasel-worded the whole thing so they could claim they weren’t encouraging insubordination when everybody knows they were. The whole episode flew like a lead balloon, and the pushback shutdown those rogues.
Senator Mark Kelly (D) went along with the charade because he was pandering to the hard left so he could get the Democrat nomination, I’m pretty sure of that. He was a military officer, so his conduct was borderline mutinous.
Now this Anonymous is demanding proof even though he himself knows those Senators wanted wanton civil disobedience directed against Trump in the military. Since when has miscreants like Anonymous cared if Trump and ICE were actually upholding both the law and popular will? Never; they want chaos so they can blame it on Trump.
“Now this Anonymous is demanding proof even though he himself knows …”
What stupid shit… he himself knows, what sort of stupidity is that?
Like its been said here previously, 99% of the comments here are completely stupid. Dio proved it again.
I love how you guys literally change the words of people to make them fit your argument. It’s cool – if you really want to die on the hill protecting a morbidly obese, spray-tanned, comb-over grifting pedophile who is trying very hard to silence his critics – knock yourselves out. That’s on you. I just don’t know why or when you started hating America so much.
Which guys? We love how you literally change the words of commenters to fit your argument. Fixed it. You’re welcome.
Anything else I can help you with?
Not covered by the 1A?
And you got irrefutable legal proof of what you said? Can’t be hard to prove it, a simple link …
Hi Mars… still waiting.
Caleb Mars,
That is exactly the way I saw it. As a former military type, I found their message to be border line treasonous.
Thank you for your service 🙂
There is a thin line between free speech and attempting to cause seditious unrest and doubt in the minds of our military. That is not free speech. Those Senators knew exactly what they were doing. What “unlawful orders” were they referring to? When asked, not one of them could come up with an answer, other than one showing their own lack of judgement and ignorance. They stumbled for an answer to a.qiesttion they didn’t think they would be asked, and finally said they were just “reminding” the troops in case they had doubts whether or not an order was unlawful. The troops know what the Military Code states, it’s one of the first things they learn. Those Senators made that video to intentionally sow doubt. To cause the military to second guess everything, which in the current world climate can cost them their lives if they hesitate to follow an order. Their nickname is in my opinion fits; The Seditious Six. It’s going to stick in spite of what liberal political anti-Trump Judges decide.
Reminds me of an old cartoon. It shows people talking and smoking cigarettes while also standing in waste deep poop. . .then there is an order telling the participants that “break time is over, so back on your heads.”
While Britain destroys free speech, government officials claim with straight faces that they are protecting society. Well, current government officials are the biggest fascists in Britain, acting just like the Nazis they pretend to be fighting through their leftwing extremism. Shame on once-proud Britain, and the rest of cowardly Europe.
As an outspoken conservative Christian and a member of the III% who is banned for life from Facebook, suspended from Twitter and censored on Newsbreeak. I would be locked up for life in the UK. But here in the USA my 2nd amendment right insures my 1st amendment right. The UK has threatened to arrest American citizens for exercising their free speech rights. My 2nd amendment right assures that won’t happen either.
But FBI director Kash Patel and President Trump said you’re not allowed to exercise your 2A right if you’re attending a protest. You good with that?
No, what they said was taking fire arms to a protest is not a good idea. When the protester enters the street, (supposed to stay on sidewalks), starts spitting on and kicking cars, repeatedly drives through the street obstructing the officers, agents etc., and they are carrying weapons, it looks very intimidating. It doesn’t look like their intentions are non-violent. So if you don’t want a confrontation that includes gun fire, leave your weapon at home or don’t confront the agents carrying out the law.
I get the impression the guy wants to dire a martyr.
look at his gravatar: “Threeper Rob, Husband, Father, Grandfather and American Patriot. A Soldier in the Lords Army. III%”
Martyr for sure. And crazy.
Here’s the direct quote from Kash Patel. “”You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple.”
Trump’s direct quote in response to Pretti at the protest, “You can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns.”
But please do go on twisting their words into something that you’d rather them be.
63 rounds of ammuntion, looked like that guy was planning on committing a mass shooting. at lest prepared to commit one.
Again, a choice to misinterpret what Trump was saying. That person had been violent with ICE Agents for weeks, interjecting himself into law enforcement operations. He strapped on a weapon fully loaded with extra mags, knowing he was going looking for trouble, he he did not have his ID or his firearm person his person. Which usually means they don’t necessarily think they’re returning home. This person had been interfering and obstructing ICE operations all morning. He deliberately placed himself between the Agent and the target,.failed to let them know he had a firearm on him. The fact that he neither had ID or his firearm permit on his person, made it illegal for him to be carrying. The Agents did not know he was armed, when he reached his arm back towords.his holster they thought he was.going for a gun, they were not made aware, or could not hear that he’d been disarmed during the scuffle. They thought he was and acted accordingly. It’s tragic that a life was lost. This is a result of the violent rioting and obstruction by these paid agitators is dangerous. It distracts Agents, it’s too loud to hear anything, and it’s illegal. Not one of them was conducting a 1A protected PEACEFUL assembly. They were conducting a physically violent obstruction of Federal Immigration law enforcement operation. They are the foot soldiers called out to riot by Jacob Frey, Tim Walz and Keith Ellison. This man was put out there to sacrifice himself for their cause, as was the lady who ran into the Agent. These “leaders” do not care about them. It’s whatever it takes to protect the illegals.
Got a question for you. I saw where you claim to carry T. Paine’s Common Sense on your person, and the Constitution next to your bed.
Honest question here, Why? What’s the point you’re making?
If you’re banned here, there; and everywhere, supposedly you name is publicly infamous, then why are you using a moniker here?
Put the Uk speech legislation next to the ISIS destruction of thousands of years of Sumer’s culture in the Fertile Crescent. Was the cultural nationalism the shared value of those works or the destruction of them? Is there a limiting principle in the legislation that informs which viewpoint is ok? How about discussing preservation or destruction of Stonehenge as cultural nationalism?