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.
The attacks on freedom of speech (FOS) are waged by those who embrace malevolent tyrannical ideologies such as Islam and the left. They realize that FOS is crucial to the support and maintenance of freedom and individual rights in any free country. The Starmer left wing government in the UK is one of the worst offenders in this regard. Yes, FOS can be abused but everything good has a price and the price we pay for the enormous value of FOS is to put up with those who misuse or outright abuse it. FOS is the crucial building block on which all other freedoms, assembly, press, religion, bearing arms, etc. rest for without FOS, no alarm can be sounded when vicious ‘wanna be’ tyrants, for example, the left and Islam, try to impose their chosen form of police state.
I’m done mincing words. The modern left are a relic in the West from the Middle Ages, not unlike Islam; they whine and whinge from their castles, imagining from birth that they are just somehow, ‘better’. We are not that stupid, but they sure are.
Fetterman said that the DNC looked like children at the last state of the union speech, and he was correct. You all are ridiculous. We will continue to marginalize you, because we are actually sane and loving people, you just imagine yourselves to be. Hubris will die an ignominious death today just as it always has – free will won’t tolerate it forever, and this is not the 1930s – we know better, we prepare better, and we will do better – but you can’t accept change with grace; no, you are the merry fools attached to a status quo. Marx was, frankly, retarded, insane, ignorant, or the whole trifecta. He was a shallow idiot. Petri dishes are deeper than Marx.
You heirs to anachronistic privilege will just have to deal with just being people. Sorry, not sorry.
Fetterman began leaning far Right after suffering considerable brain damage.
In a mystery novel, that would be referred to as a clue.
As a Mayor, long before his stroke, Fetterman held a Black jogger at gunpoint, until police arrived, and determined the jogger had done nothing wrong.
This is not what progressive Demmocrats would have done.
Anonymous’s definition of “far right” – agrees with the Left 90% of the time instead of 100%.
It’s more likely that the stroke made him aware of the likelihood of a limited career in politics giving him the freedom to break from the party on issues he disagrees with.
James: as a MAGA, you do not represent the feelings or values of most of us. I do agree that “hubis will die an ignominious death”—but that applies to Trump, not “the modern left” that MAGA keeps trying to indoctrinate the MAGAs into believing are bad people with bad intentions. Trump’s “state of the union” speeches are a joke–not a funny one–because it will be jam-packed with lies, hubris and self-serving grandiosity. Democrats and the SCOTUS should simply refuse to attend because it will be nothing but one big ego fest. Everyone, including you MAGAs, know Trump is a chronic, habitual liar and will make all sorts of outlandish claims about a successful economy, which is a lie, about unemployment and inflation numbers, which are bad, and international relations, which have never been more fraught. The rest of the world no longer trusts us and who can blame them? In a poll taken earlier this week, if the 2024 election were held today, Trump would lose to Kamala Harris–his “victory” was less than 1.5% of the vote. Also, the majority of Americans said, in polling, that Biden was a better President, and that we were better off under Biden.
Those of us who are not MAGA don’t know how can you MAGAs can ignore all of the lying, all of the racism, misogyny, damage to our economy, damage to our world standing and respect, damage to our relations with allies forged over decades, ignoring of the Constitution, obvious lying and covering up of the Epstein Scandal, abuse of process and wasting of taxpayer dollars trying to prosecute perceived enemies, killing of US citizens for protesting via a private army of masked thugs, using the FCC to try to silence critics, and rolling back of consumer and environmental protections to benefit campaign donors. Where does he get off tearing down part of our White House to build a vanity project that will dwarf the White House, all without any oversight or approval? You say we “can’t accept change with grace”? The “change” you are referring to is an authoritarian who wants unlimiited power, a Congress that will not perform its duty as a co-equal branch of government, syncophantic toadies in law enforcement who take their marching orders from a sociopathic narcissist bent on using the FBI and DOJ as his personal law firm to go after his enemies and intimidate law firms, non-MAGA media and universities, unilaterally trying to enact tariffs as leverage to force other countries to do his will, contrary to the Constitution, as the SCOTUS just held, and/or for punishment because he doesn’t like how a world leader spoke to him. These are “changes” the majority of us oppose because America was founded as a democracy–not a monarchy. Trump is a profound failure and most Americans know it because he keeps setting records for low approval ratings.
Personal law firm? Biden’s Number 3 man at Justice quit that lofty post to be a flunky for Alvin Bragg. Why give up all that power and prestige?
Because it was mire important to tag Trump with 34 insubstantial felonies than have a meaningful career. (Hillary committed the same crimes as Trump, by labeling Steele Dossier payments “Legal Services,” but neither New York State nor the feds were interested in prosecuting her.)
I would like to see his financial records 🤔
I agree with James, you got a mouse in your pocket you’re speaking for?
Gigi/Natasha, Trump put money in my pocket. Obama and Biden took money out of my pocket. Trump is doing better and trying to do better for all Americans.
The State Department should issue travel advisories to Americans traveling to nations that suppress free speech; warnings that make it clear they may be prosecuted for prior statements made on American soil (as has been done previously in cases involving the questioning of “official history”).
I am really happy I got to see western Europe the way it used to be when I was stationed in Germany three times back in the 70s and 80s. I used to think I would like to spend a whole summer there after I retired, visiting places I used to know and places I never got to. But seeing what has been happening to these once great countries, I no longer have any desire to go back again. Of course I didn’t see eastern Europe, and I didn’t really want to see eastern Europe when it was under the Soviets, but the only places I would like to see over there now are in eastern Europe. I think Budapest, Prague, Warsaw, and a number of other interesting places would substitute quite nicely for the places in western Europe I no longer want to experience again given what they are doing to themselves.
Rather than Warsaw, I would suggest Krakow. Then Lublin and finally Lodz.
It’s way past time for the State Dept to, at the very least, issue a travel advisory against the UK. This rebuilding of the Iron Curtain and all the way to the Atlantic seawall is sickening. What in hell was WW2 about only to see leftist dictators erect a police state that would have made Hitler happy? Even David Horowitz couldn’t have imagined the Britain of today when he said “Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out”
You are so full of excrement you really ought to dose yourself with a laxative.
Sounds like ANON is full of Schiff!
Where is Xlax today?
He overdosed, so he will be in the bathroom for a while.
Meanwhile, Trump is having a cow because the SCOTUS struck down his illegal tariffs, 6 to 3, which most legal authorities opined would happen because there was no emergency. His staff had to escort out members of the media before they told him. Now, he’ll have to give back billions he extorted from importers, but the Trump authoritarian regime is vowing to find another way to impose tariffs. Just like Trump can’t let go of the fact that he lost in 2020, he will continue to command Pammie Jo and others to “keep fighting”–for what? Vindication of that ego? The main jobs Trump has created are in the legal industry.
. Yes, the US is moving into becoming East Germany after WWII. Those nations worked until the Reagan admin to pay off the debt of WWI and WWII and it was over. You, anon, will be hungry and working to pay your own debt, 37 trillion? I don’t think you’ll recover as neighbor nations will take a bite out and consolidate it for just American citizens to pay which you’ll never do so you’ll sell the remainder of the land you POS, anon.
30 something trillion dollar debt is some kind of emergency. You’ll find it located, strewn throughout the world.
Turley– “[Judge] Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values”
And , Presto! The judge becomes a Nazi.
What happened? Did Hitler really win the war and it was kept secret?
Funny thing, Turls. Apparently the Brits are being discouraging to royalty whipping out Mr. Pow now and raping little girls, even for royalty these days. Granted it’s all because they fear Epstein can take the government down from the grave.
Good on the Brits either way.
Obviously, since we live in a supposedly competitive autocracy now, it’s not such a big deal here…
My bad though, Turls…you’re on a mission to get orange trump butt paste on your nose. Have at it and party on!!!
envy and retaliation know no bounds.
Speaking of rape, London Mayor Khan Under Fire As BBC Exposes Scale Of Grooming Gangs
“London Mayor Sadiq Khan is facing renewed criticism after a major BBC investigation found that vulnerable girls as young as 14 are being lured into forced sex by gangs operating across the capital.”
https://rmx.news/article/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-faces-backlash-after-bbc-investigation-exposes-scope-of-grooming-gangs-operating-in-the-city/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd9xnjyy8po
The girls were too old? 😏
Of course calling for the destruction of Israel and beating of Jews is fully tolerated if not encouraged in much of that country. Will not step foot again in either England or Ireland
“Hamm was penalized for “her statements defending the right of women to access female-only spaces.” https://vancouversun.com/news/bc-nurse-suspension-fines-comments-transgender
Oh dear, how sad, never mind. We will miss you.
That Iranian President did not want to destroy Israel, but literally to wipe it off the map, remove the borders from the map, have it be part of some other country.
Of course Cleese risks arrest by the UK Soviet/Caliphate; he is as English as roast beef, fish and chips and a pint. No room for that type on their little island.
They will want his type to save their butts if there is a war though. Increasingly their young men are saying they won’t. Same in Germany. Why bother?
Then there is the Jewish Question. The island will lose a lot of intellectual firepower when they are chased out. Too stupid to care I suppose. Shame if Starmer’s IQ becomes the mean for the island…big drop.
So if a liberal says something that offends a conservative and might inspire a brawl, will the liberal be arrested?
No, of course not. They will arrest the conservative for taking part in the brawl, but the liberal (leftist) will be free to go after giving his statement against the conservative. The cops and/or the judge will conclude that the liberal (leftist) said nothing offensive and so the conservative had no valid reason to be offended and was solely responsible for the brawl. If you put the shoe on the other foot and it was the liberal (leftist) who was offended by something the conservative said, then that person was fully justified brawling back and it was all the conservative’s fault. Free speech will be allowed only if what you says aligns with the views of those in authority. But when a few liberals (leftists) do not correctly perceive the views of those in authority and themselves get arrested, then everyone will be afraid to say anything and so won’t say anything. Kind of like the way it was under Stalin and Mao.
SCOTUS strikes down tariffs.
White House staff rush to hide all the ketchup bottles.
SCOTUS strikes down tariffs.
Full scale attack of Iran begins tonight.
Like tariffs/taxes, only the U.S. congress has the authority to declare war. .. but I doubt that will deter Bibi and Trump.
. Have you read the opinion? Perhaps a few economics degrees should be on the court.
The Treasury sells our debt which we currently can support ourselves. The debt is sold to foreign nations. Currently 30% of our debt has been purchased. There’s a huge trade imbalance added to that. How about raising taxes to cover that debt and stopping imports.
Is the president a puppet of congress? Ah yes, a parliament? What’s the origin of that and forget the gaslighting communism and socialism.
Let’s all read the opinion now. 😂
dgsnowden – The power to declare war and the power to lay tariffs are neither constitutionally not legal the same.
SCOTUS struck down a particularly broad interpretation of ONE law that gave the president nearly unlimited power to levy tariff.
Both the constituton and multiple other laws, give the president SOME power to levi tariffs – just not as broad as he would like.
SCOTUS did NOT say the president has no lawful/constitutional power to levy tariffs.
It said that a specific law and the Trump administrations intepretation are not as broad as the administration wishes.
In the end this will matter little – first The Trump administration prepared other legal authorities for most tariffs.
Next, Congress is not going to give up over $300B/yr in funds.
With respect to the Presidents power to use the military force of the United States,
That has been debated since the time of Washington.
I generally support involving congress when there is time.
But that has not been Close to what has been done for my entire lifetime.
I do not think Trump can use the military to acheive regime change in Iran without the consent of Congress,
But Bush II did that in Afghanistan – he did get an AUMF for Iraq,
Bush I did not get congresses permission to go into Panama, or Somalia, Reagan did not to go into Granada or Lebanon.
Clinton did not to use force in the Balkans, Obama did not to use force against Syria, or Libya.
Biden did not to provide support to Ukraine.
Trump did not to take out Irans nuclear program
Trump did not to use force to get Maduro.
Presidents do not need congressional approval for short duration military actions.
Nor to respond to events that arise rapidly.
We currently do not know the purpose, extent and duration of Trump’s actions in Iran.
They have not happened yet.
I and most people want the end to the rule of the Ayatolahs.
But I do not beleive that any president can use force to seek regime change without the consent of congress.
But that is NOT the US law and constitution.
Conversely operations to protect US citizens – Grenada, to arrest Criminals – Bush I, Panama, and Trump, Maduro should not need congressional approval. What was supposed to be an aide operation – Somalia should not need congressional approval.
We are currently blockading Iran, Cuba, and partially Venezuela – those operations are ALREADY blessed by congress.
The attack on the Iranian nuclear program was atleast partly justified by the same sanctions.
Iran has already declared war on the US – so we are at war with Iran already.
FDR secured a declaration of war against Japan – but NOT Germany. WE were at war with Germany – because Germany declared war on the US.
So whether Trump needs congressional authorization in Iran depends on exactly what he does.
Trump already has the authority to enforce the sanctions placed on Iran and arguably to use military force to do so.
That is justification to do further damage to the Iranian nuclear program.
To destroy the Iranian IRBM/ICBM progran
and to diminish Iran’s abiltiy to use terrorism to destabalize the region.
It also includes taking out any Iranian forces that threaten the US or other forces in the region
Such as trying to attack US forces, and trying to close the straight of Hormuz.
But again we do not know what Trump’s actual intentions are.
If I were to guess he is NOT going to use significant US military forces.
Like Panama and Greenland Earlier, he is using a threat to get what he actually wants.
Iran is already in bad shape economically, The presence of US forces in the region has ratchetted up the sanctions enforcement.
Iran can not export oil, and its ability to export weapons to Russia are drastically limited – that is severaly negatively impacting Russia’s ability to fight Ukraine and we are seeing significant weakening of Russia in Ukraine as a result.
My GUESS is that Trump will mostly take actions to tilt the balance of power to protestors in Iran.
That means undermining Iran economically – which he is already doing.
Iran needs hard currency to fund the IRGC and other paramilitary groups in Iran – the Iranian military is NOT political and may well join the protestors under the right circumstances.
Trump aslo has to be carefull because as we saw in Iraq – when outsiders attack, that tends to unify the country against them.
Actually, I hope you’re correct. That Trump is just blowing more smoke out of his a** .. . but I think Bibi is quite mad.
Most serious analysis/polymarkets have the risk of conflict high -> 75%+. Military assets have been deployed.
Even in the event of ‘minor’ U.S./Israel strikes, Iran has vowed ‘full-scale’ retaliation. In the entire extended Persian Gulf region, and beyond!
This is not good. The price of gas is rising as we speak. .. just thinking about it.
*the U.S. Congress hasn’t declared war .. . since WWII?
I do not think you and I are at significant odds on this.
The BIG questions is what will Trump actually DO.
Everyone is GUESSING – and Trump WANTS IT THAT WAY.
He WANTS the Ayatolah to be terified that we are going to drop bunker busters down his ass.
I told you my GUESS – but that is JUST A GUESS.
Israel is an altogether different issue. I think Trump can check Israel from acting unilaterally right NOW.
But if the US backs away – the Israelis are likely doing something no matter what.
They will wait for Iran to do something stupid – but that can be counted on.
Regardless unless done VERY CAREFULLY military action will NOT get regime change – without sucking the US into another Iraq.
Nations coalesce – even around tyrannical dictators when attacked.
I do not think Israel can do anything that will not strengthen the Ayatollahs grip on power – thought he CAN damage iran’s ability to F#$K with Israel for a while.
“Most serious analysis/polymarkets have the risk of conflict high -> 75%+. Military assets have been deployed.”
That is betting markets trying to read Trump’s mind. Guaging themood of the people – even better than polls – betting markets are good at that. Guessing what is in ONE person- and particularly Trump’s head – not so much.
“Even in the event of ‘minor’ U.S./Israel strikes, Iran has vowed ‘full-scale’ retaliation. In the entire extended Persian Gulf region, and beyond!”
Absolutely – but th extent of what they can do is very limited. They have no airforce of any consequence, They just destroyed one of their own F4’s today trying to get it off the ground. They have lots of IRBM’s – these are long range but guidance is little better than a V2 – They are not hitting an Aircraft Carrier with one. Immediately after Iran’s air defenses are taken out – even in a limited strike – those missles are th #2 priority – I would guess they will be a factor for a day or two. The next priority will be Drones. Iran is producing something like 40% of all Russia’s drones. These could be targeted at US forces, Israel, Gulf Neighbors, … But most of those drones are NOT long range. Short range drones are useless so long as we do not put boots on the ground – EXCEPT to close the straights of Hormuz. Regardless the next priority would be th boat swarms and drones trying to close the straights of homuz.
I do not think Iraq’s long range drones are going to prove effective – given the forces that the US Gulf Allies and Israel have in the region. Israel CAN protect itself and its neighbors from Iranian drones without provoking anyone’s ire. The Israeli air force is likely 2nd only to the US in the entire world, The next priority would be the remanants of Iran’s nuclear problem, and the last target would be the IRGC and paramilitaries.
IF we go kinectic – a major goal will be to empower the protestors, and to get the Iranian Army to join the protestors.
But I would also not rule out something completely different. I think it will be much harder to get the Ayatolah than Maduro, but do NOT rule out that all the forces int he area are just cover for an entirely different effort.
Trump is NOT predictable – and that is deliberate.
It is also entirely possible that we will just camp forces off Iran for as long as it takes to collapse the regime.
Iran is in REALLY BAD SHAPE – they have massive water problems – they only have water for about 1/2 of their people.
They have massive economic problems – that have just gotten much much worse.
I noted th use of Drones above – but Iran can not both send Drones to Russia AND keep them to counter US forces.
And if they do not send them to russia, They lose the very limited cash they have coming in to float the regime.
One of the big problems in Iran is that the country is massively corrupt. It is not just the Ayatolah that goes down, there are about 600,000 Iranians part of the IRGC and paramilitaries – there are also foreign mercinaries.
All these people need PAID, and if they are not paid – it is questionable how long their loyalty lasts.
And successful regime change required neutering 600K people dependent on the existing corrupt system.
Regardless Iran is essentially blockaded, Nothing is going in and out by water and very little by air.
While it is expensive to keep the forces we have in the region – it is much cheaper than War.
And we can afford it – Iran can’t.
My GUESS is a long tense blockade – though we will not call it that.
With retaliation for anything agressive Iran actually does.
But I want to stress AGAIN – merely neutralizing Iran – which is currently effectively the case,
significantly weakens Russia, Cuba, China and encourages Venezuela to play nice.
“This is not good. The price of gas is rising as we speak. .. just thinking about it.”
The effect on the price of gas will be short term – it is soley because Iran will likely try to close the straights of Hormuz.
I do not think they can do that for long. Iran’s own oil is inconsequential due to sanctions.
The Bigger oil issue is that the rest of the Gulf does NOT for many reasons want regime change or even a resolution.
The sanctions on Iranian oil make the rest of the region Richer. Those countries do not want significant Iranian oil hitting the market,
They also do not want significant Venezuelan or Russian oil to hit the market.
They want the Ayatolah gone – but they do not want it by popular uprising – that could spread.
They want the status Quo of the moment – a weakened and neutered Iran and no more.
“*the U.S. Congress hasn’t declared war .. . since WWII?”
No they have substituted things like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution or the 2003 AUMF.
They are essentially the same thing – allowing the president full war powers.
Yes Congress will too give up $300B in funds.
They will do this as a means to tank the economy, and so win votes for Democrats.
How can you not see this? Did you sleep through the serial government shut downs? The banana republic style impeachments and law fare indictments? The 10 million plus illegal aliens waved across the border?
Were you not paying attention?
“By any means necessary” is the order of the day among Democrats. Do not impute to them any love of country, or concern for American citizens who are workers, consumers, or taxpayers. They look right through us.
“Yes Congress will too give up $300B in funds.
They will do this as a means to tank the economy, and so win votes for Democrats.”
And every republican candidate will blame them for it.
“How can you not see this? Did you sleep through the serial government shut downs? The banana republic style impeachments and law fare indictments? The 10 million plus illegal aliens waved across the border?”
People do not perceive the shutdowns etc. as economically damaging.
““By any means necessary” is the order of the day among Democrats.”
Correct – but they have to avoid taking the blame.
Democrats are incredibly unpopular right now.
” Do not impute to them any love of country, or concern for American citizens who are workers, consumers, or taxpayers. They look right through us.”
I don’t – they care about VOTES.
That’s not what Smoot-Hawley says and it has never been repealed. And this is not the 1930s, the USA has much more clout than then.
It’s time to pick a lawyer who gets the best possible cash award
SCOTUS did not strike down the tariffs, It struck down the broad interpretation of one law that Trump was using as ONE basis for those tariffs.
There are atleast half a dozen other legal basis, Trump has for Tariffs.
The significance of this decision is that Trump has to rely on multiple narrower authorities for each tariff
Of course your assertion is typically ignorant and stupid, as is everything else you say here.
All the other authorities to impose tariffs require the approval of Congress, which will never happen, you idiot.
The only reason Trump used the IEEPA is because it is the ONLY authority under which he can act unilaterally.
You are such an insufferable idiot !!!!!!
. What a great opening to your rant. I got to pass on by it. 👋
Thanks, John. Do you have a link to the slip?
Yet again, Turley spouts the same old tired lies.
No one was arrested for singing “Kung-fu Fighting.” A lie. They were arrested to avert a potential bar brawl.
No one was arrested for calling someone a leprechaun. A lie. They were also arrested to avert a potential bar brawl.
Lie after lie, but Turley keeps on pushing them in his rubbish little book and this rubbish little blog, and you MAGA morons seek on his tainted teats as if he were a visionary.
Waiting to see how Turley spins Trump getting his arse handed to him on tariffs by SCOTUS…
Suck, not seek… obviously.
Obviously it is all right for Trump to appropriate other people’s money… oh, SCOTUS says it is not!!!!
What has this to do with appropriating money ?
Turley was whining only yesterday about Mamdani helping himself to other people’s money. I would have thought a troll-bot like you would have a better contextual memory. Then again, your illiteracy suggests you are not a top of the range bot.
I really hope your post was sarcasm.
Potential bar brawls are not actual bar brawls. So, they were arrested for something that did not occur.
If singing “Kung Fu Fighting” is what the person did that could potentially start a bar brawl, then the person was arrested for singing it regardless of what the official charge was.
Arrested for breach of the peace. Which involved drunken altercation, not name calling. You do not know the facts, neither does Turley who simply relies on third rate tabloid reporting rather than any forensic examination of what happened. Which one might expect of a law professor, but clearly not a law professor trying to sell a book.
None of this is sarcasm. Turley needs to focus on what he might plausibly be credible, namely the US Constitution, not pass judgement on other countries legal systems of which he has no understanding. Of course, focusing on the US Constitution might require him to be critical of DJT, and that would upset Fox…
Prof. Turley talks about rage rhetoric as caustic and demoralizing, but doesn’t ever say what we could do policy-wise to restore civility. Ridiculing the bizarre overreach going on in the UK?….that nicely evades the crux of the problem facing all free societies in the age of social media and the borderless internet — which is a gross distortion of the traditional “public square” in the direction of anything-goes-permissiveness.
We’re not making any progress laughing at how others flail in their approach to the problem. It’s just a way to distract from crafting an effective solution to the problem.
“doesn’t ever say what we could do policy-wise to restore civility”
Because we should not and can not restore civility through policy.
“Ridiculing the bizarre overreach going on in the UK?….that nicely evades the crux of the problem facing all free societies in the age of social media and the borderless internet — which is a gross distortion of the traditional “public square” in the direction of anything-goes-permissiveness.”
Yes, the diredction of progress has ALWAYS been greater freedom, and that is a good thing.
The internet is NOT “anything goes” – the existing constraints on speech remain.
“True threats” are still illegal. Kiddie porn is still illegal.
“We’re not making any progress laughing at how others flail in their approach to the problem”
Progress towards what ? Censorship ? No think you.
Your flaw is presuming there is ANY legitimate govenrment response to end incivility.
Quite litterally the core of the first amendment is that you can NOT restrict speech to secure YOUR perception of civility.
“It’s just a way to distract from crafting an effective solution to the problem.”
There is no problem that requires a solution from government.
The US has been through this before. The politics of our founders were brutally incivil.
We survived. We even thrived.
As Bradeis noted a century ago – the response to bad speech is MORE SPEECH.
“Arrested for breach of the peace.”
Which can mean anything.
” Which involved drunken altercation”
So did the people arrested assault anyone ?
An altercation has TWO people using FORCE against each other – it is the unjustified initiation of FORCE
that is the crime.
So Who was fighting ? And who initiated the use of FORCE ?
Anyone who did not INITIATE FORCE, or who did not back down as the police stepped in is guilty of a crime.
NO ONE ELSE.
But you keep making things up to try to undermine reality.
” You do not know the facts”
And you do ?
“neither does Turley who simply relies on third rate tabloid reporting”
You mean like Wapo and NYT ?
“rather than any forensic examination of what happened.”
You do not need “forensic examination” – this is not a who dunit.
We do not need DNA or fingerprints.
Was there and actual altercation YES or NO
if not the arrests were NOT justified and Turley is correct.
If yes, were those who initiated violence through the use of FORCE arrested or was it others,
“None of this is sarcasm. Turley needs to focus on what he might plausibly be credible,”
Pretty sure Turley is credible on the law – and particularly first amendment law.
” namely the US Constitution”
First amendment is part of the constitution.
” not pass judgement on other countries legal systems of which he has no understanding.”
So the Nazi’s exterminating Jews, and homosexuals is all good ?
What kind of an idiot are you ?
Of course we pass judgement on other countries.
Further we expect and judge harshley western countries acting contrary to western principles.
Free speech is not a US principle – it is a principle of Western law, with ancient Roots.
” Of course, focusing on the US Constitution might require him to be critical of DJT”
We will all be happy to have a discussion of ACTUAL instances in which Trump has violated the US constitution.
Particularly where he has done so in ways that Past Supreme courts have ruled presidents may not,
Do you have ANY of those ?
I think many of Trump’s actions are unconstitutional. I think the same of similar actions by every president in my lifetime.
But SCOTUS has disagreed.
Trump has followed the constitution and the constitutional precidents of prior supreme court decisions.
He has obeyed court orders that did not require a time machine to comply with UNTIL they were struck down – which pretty much universally they have been.
SCOTUS just struck down the broad Tarrif authority Trump claimed. Trump will comply.
But mostly that mean doing little or nothing.
There are half a dozen other Tariff authorities that Trump can rely on – just not as broad.
But if there is a Trump tariff that does not comply with any existing law – it will be rescinded.
So what is your actual evidence of unconstitutional conduct by Trump ?
This nonsense from those of you on the left that any policy you do not like is unconstitutional is wrong and dangerous.
Listen, you tedious troll-bot, you are wrong. Turley is lying. He does not understand English (or Scots) law. Neither do you. There is no God given right to free speech, so the whole thesis of Turley’s claims are founded on ridiculous assertion. English law carefully balances a general freedom of speech against such vices as slander, libel if written, defamation, incitement to violence or hatred, subversion, etc, etc. It is far superior to the mess you lot have allowed to evolve in the past two and a half centuries just because you think the Constitution is infallible, but then whine like dogs when a Court actually upholds one of the more sensible aspects of said Constitution.
I thank God I was born British, not American. 🙂
Except for the bad teeth and homely women…😝😝
Thank you for a more concise explanation than mine
methinks you may want to look up the meaning of inchoate crimes and our nation’s extensive criminalization of them.
You can be “arrested for something that did not occur” in the US too. The difference is where the line is drawn. Inchoate crimes still require an intent to commit the underlying offense.
Intent to commit the violent act is required here in the US, but it isn’t in the UK. While that is a valid point Turley could make, he continues to mislead his readers.
The true bait-and-switch from Turley was that this Kung-Fu Fighting case was dropped due to insufficient evidence. So it is one big nothingburger.
“MAGA morons” that sounds a lot like hate speech
No, just valid political commentary.
who decides ?
Sure sounds like hate speech to me.
Turley: “Look how evil the British are for quashing freedom of speech!!!” (contorts a bunch of 5th page news stories to meet his narrative.
Also Turley: “I have NO PROBLEM with Trump 1) silencing Colbert, 2) silencing 60 minutes 3) silencing protestors 4) silencing Universities 5) silencing politicians who criticize me 6) silencing election results he doesn’t like.”
I could add silencing government scientists in areas of climate and health.
No one is silencing the high priests or warmendom or the idiots who botched Covid.
They have just been disconnected from the government gravy train.
Govenrment is no longer paying them to lie.
YOU are free to do that yourself
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42779407
So if a liberal says something that offends a conservative and might motivate the conservative to brawl, should the liberal be arrested?
So you are going with “The minority report: bureau of precrime” nonsense.
People are arrested for CRIMES, not “potential crimes” You can arrest people for an ACTUAL bar brawl,
not one that may or may not happen.
If you are arresting people for a “potentionl” bar brawl – what are you arresting them for ?
Potential assault ? On who ? How do you know who was going to assault who until After the brawl ?
Turley is not spin doctoring – YOU are.
Actually, under English law there is an offence of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Would help if you knew the legal system on which you and Turley spout. It exists because, funnily enough, it is better to prevent a breach of the peace than mop up after one has occurred. Now, of course, there has to be demonstrable evidence that the accused’s behaviour was likely to cause a breach – unlike you lot, we do not let ICE thugs run around making up offences.
I guess Britain really did not learn the lesson about freedom of speech and freedom of religion they were taught from 1776 to 1783.
The war stated over lack of representation and taxes.
The Declaration of Independence says differently. I recommend reading it some time.
A large quantity of propaganda produced by venal traitors to try to justify their rebellion. Of course they were not going to be honest about their motives.
“Propaganda” implies untruths. What falsehoods did Jefferson insert into the Declaration? Have any historians pointed any out?
How about… “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Unless you happen to be one of Mr Jefferson’s or Mr Washington’s slaves?
Hypocracy does not falsify anything Jefferson wrote.
Do you mean “hypocrisy” you tedious, illiterate bot?
And little George Washington having a hissy fit on not being granted a permanent military commission… and proud “patriots” worried that Britain was leaning towards the abolition of slavery…
Washington succssfully defeated the best of the British army – clearly the british mad a huge mistake.
Washington is generally ranked among the greatest generals of history – Julius Ceasar, Napolean, Robert E. Lee,
Can you neame a single British general of that era of that stature.
Oh for pity’s sake, Washington was nearly as incompetent as Gates. The revolutionaries only won because of the French. By the way it is Caesar, not Ceasar, and Napoleon, not Napolean. Illiterate troll bot.
Great British generals of the 18th century? Marlborough, Wolfe, Clive, just for starters. Howe and Cornwallis bested Washington at Long Island; no sign of genius from the great GW there!
No serious historian outside of the US rates Washington as a general.
Freedom of religion? Funny how you Puritan colonies regarded Britain granting freedom of religion to the Quebecois as one of the “Intolerable Acts”. You do not even know your own bloody history. Then again, you think history only started in 1776. Moronic.
. Long before 1776, anon, 2000 years ago with messianic prophecy which were the plans of God and chosen people for a time far far in the future and the people created and hand picked for that time, the final need, purpose of God as he wanted. Once that is completed it is completed. Who are you , anon, to say people are morons? God creates his people and others are others. Go now and eek out your daily bread by the sweat of your brow.
Go, lie down, and take your medication my dear.
. I’ll pray for you first, anon. In doing so I keep my heart clean. You’re a temptation to insult you. My heart has not known hatred before but you tempt me. 😉
No, we know history started in 1492. Ocean blue and all that. Multicultural.
The Quebec Act which is not always mentioned as part of the “intolerable acts” dramatically expanded canadian teritory, transfering large parts of new england to Quebec.
Maryland was a mostly Catholic colony at the time of the revolution,
Absolutely many colonial americans did NOT like the religion of their neighbors.
But the learned from experience how badly fighting over that went in Europe.
The freedom of religion in the first amendment was NOT some joyous grant
it was the begrudging acceptance that toleration of the religion of others was a requirement if they expected toleration of their religion.
You seem to be the one ignorant of history.
The European Wars of Religion happened a century or more before the colonies started accusing the British government of an intolerable act for allowing the Quebecois freedom of religion. So no, the colonies had learned ABSOLUTELY nothing from the European experience. Try studying history, not spouting US hypocritical and false narratives, or bollocks as they are colloquially known.
John Milton – was one of the early advocates of free speech as we would define it today.
John Stuart Mill is one of the greatest advocates of individual liberty and particularly free speech and put together the logical argument for free speech that drove the advance of free speech throughout the world to this day.
Both are englishmen – not americans.
Nothing in the american revolution was original to the colonists.
Everything about the US revolution, self government, individual liberty, and our constitution came from Europe, mostly the UK, and mostly the Scottish Enlightenment.
The difference is that America Acheived though not perfectly – what the British conceived of, but could not acheive
You do realise that John Stuart Mill was a liberal, and would utterly despise everything for which Trump’s perversion of the GOP stands?
Vincente, threads like this make me think… if only someone would write a plain-English book explaining what the Declaration actually says and why it still matters. Might save us 200 comments next time… assuming people actually read it. 🤦♂️
Isn’t the Declaration already in plain English? Why would we need another book explaining it to the few who still refuse to read the original? 😋
😉That’s exactly it. Laws are written in plain English. Court decisions are written in plain English. But understanding them requires recognizing the argument being made, not just reading the words.
The Declaration may be the most profound case ever presented to the world, and it was written in plain English so anyone could understand it. Yet it is rarely read that way. Most people treat it as a historical announcement, not as a structured argument establishing the origin of rights and the limits of government authority.
It wasn’t just declaring independence. It was explaining why independence was justified under universal principles. That distinction is everything.
Plain English made it accessible. But accessibility does not guarantee comprehension.
And it was a self-serving lie… from a bunch of traitors 🙂
If it were merely a self serving lie, it would have died with the Revolution. Instead, they presented their case to the world and supported it with evidence. The bulk of the Declaration is a detailed list of specific grievances documenting repeated violations of established rights.
They made an argument and backed it with facts.
If you want to be taken seriously and not dismissed as someone just trolling the blog, then provide evidence to support your claim. Which grievance was false? Which specific charge did Jefferson invent?
Simply calling it a lie is not an argument. It is an assertion without proof.
A lot of the supposed complaints levelled against the monarchy were imagined grievances or only arose because of the revolution in the first place.
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.” What do rebels and traitors expect?
“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.” What do rebels and traitors expect?
“For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.” They were not billeted on colonists, simply quartered in their own buildings. Confected outrage.
“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.” It is called a Royal Prerogative. The British Army was actually rather small compared to most European powers. Funny how Jefferson et al were so pleased to invite in the Bourbon forces, despite those being much larger than the British Army, and routinely kept amongst the people without the consent of any legislature. Of course, the Bourbon intervention did spare the Framers from the gallows…
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.” Not something that the modern US government would do, eh? No extraordinary rendition, no abduction of a foreign president?
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Oh, the merciless Indian savages… what happened to all men are created equal? Again, the colonists resented not being allowed to conduct genocidal campaigns on Native Americans for the temerity of having land that these god-fearing Puritans coveted.
You are actually reinforcing the core argument of the Declaration, not disproving it.
Many of your responses amount to saying the Crown had the authority to do these things or that rebellion justified the response. That was precisely the issue. The colonists were not arguing that the Crown lacked power. They were arguing that power exercised without consent and in violation of their rights had lost legitimacy.
It is also important to remember that the colonists were not foreign enemies. They were British subjects. They believed they possessed the same rights as any Englishman living in Britain. For generations, they governed their own affairs, operated their own legislatures, and lived with the expectation that their rights were secure. When Parliament began asserting authority over their trade, laws, and internal governance without their consent, they saw themselves being treated less like citizens and more like a subordinate population.
The Declaration makes clear that independence was not their starting point. It was their conclusion. After repeated petitions and appeals were ignored, they presented their case to the world. They did not simply assert grievances. They listed specific actions as evidence and explained why those actions violated the principles upon which legitimate government rests.
If your position is that these grievances were imagined, then the question is straightforward. Which specific grievance was factually false, and what evidence demonstrates that it did not occur?
Simply stating that the Crown claimed the authority to act does not resolve the issue. The entire colonial argument was that rights did not exist at the pleasure of the Crown. That was the philosophical break, and it is why the Declaration continues to matter.
York had no legislature, and was governed by Parliament’s laws. Why should New York be any different to York? I am not saying that the British Government (not King George) handled the situation well, and I am not saying that the colonists had zero legitimate grievances; but a lot of those listed in the Declaration are nonetheless confected and exaggerated. They claimed high principles yet allied themselves with far more despotic powers than dear old George. Then did so all over again in 1812 when that feckless idiot Madison thought he could take advantage of Britain’s preoccupation with fighting Napoleonic tyranny, and nick Canada. All he succeeded in doing was really annoying London, destroying New England’s mercantile traffic, losing irreplaceable ships against a navy that had no shortage of ships, getting DC burned, and getting defeated at the Canadian border. He was lucky that Wellington in 1814 declined the suggestion that he should be sent to reconquer the States: he sensibly and accurately predicted that he could wipe out the US forces but to what end, because did London REALLY want the expense and bother of garrisoning the colonies again?
The comparison between York and New York misses something fundamental. York was a city inside Britain governed directly by Parliament. New York was a colony with its own legislature, operating under a royal charter, and governing its internal affairs for generations.
That was the reality of salutary neglect. The Crown allowed colonial assemblies to form, pass laws, and manage their own internal governance with minimal interference and, most importantly, with their own consent. These were not symbolic bodies. They were functioning legislatures, and Britain accepted that arrangement for well over a century.
The conflict arose when Britain reversed course after the Seven Years’ War and began asserting direct authority over matters the colonies had long handled themselves, without their consent. From the colonial perspective, this was not normal governance. It was the removal of authority they had exercised their entire lives.
They were not inventing grievances. They were reacting to a fundamental change in their relationship with Britain.
Excellent response. Anonymous is trolling, using a response in the form of a difference of opinion (that is good), but as you say, the grievances were not the cause. Despite their existence, many of the founders were willing to live under the Crown as Englishmen with certain rights preserved, and likely would have remained loyal if the Crown recognized them as Englishmen, living in a distant land somewhat differently than they would in England. The Crown’s refusal to do so is what ultimately led to the rebellion.
Well said. That gets right to the core of why independence became unavoidable.
Your argument is undermined by your ignorant inability to distinguish between Englishman and Briton. Two little things called the Acts of Union. If you cannot comprehend or respect those, and use the correct terms, then your ability to understand anything from that period is seriously in question.
Only 10% or so of colonists wanted a rebellion. 10% or so were Loyalists. 80% or so wanted to be left in peace to farm and trade, but the arrogance and hubris of the traitors, and, yes, Parliament’s misguided intransigence, meant they were not.
“Your argument is undermined by your ignorant inability to distinguish between an Englishman and a Briton. Two little things called the Acts of Union.”
Do you even know what the Acts of Union were? Based on your comment, it seems you don’t. The separate kingdoms within the British Isles were joined to form the United Kingdom. That did not include the colonies.
“80% or so wanted to be left in peace to farm and trade,”
The scales tip in favor of being left alone—peace, not rebellion.
“Parliament’s misguided intransigence meant they were not.”
Yes… both the King and Parliament. Try reading Edmund Burke.
As usual S. Meyer gets it completely wrong in his typical nitpicking attempts at asserting superior knowledge.
Meyer claims that Anonymous is ignorant of the Acts of Union, but his pathetic retort simply proves that the ignorance is his.
The 1707 Act of Union merged the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into the Kingdom of Great Britain. At that point the Kingdoms of England and Scotland ceased to exist, and both became simply constituent parts of the larger Kingdom of Great Britain. Previously, by the Acts of 1535 and 1542, Wales had merged with the Kingdom of England and ceased to be a kingdom in its own right.
The people of the Kingdom of Great Britain, were thereafter known collectively as Britons. At that point the Parliament of England ceased to exist, and the Parliament of Great Britain was established at Westminster. The Act of 1707 also established that the status of the American colonies was changed from colonies of the Kingdom of England to colonies of the Kingdom of Great Britain. This distinction was necessary to allow Scotland to have free trade with the colonies that had previously been denied.
At that point, in 1707, the colonists were all Britons, not Englishmen as you falsely and ignorantly assert.
The United Kingdom did not come in to existence until 1801 with the Act of Union merging Northern Ireland with the Kingdom of Great Britain. Your statement that the formation of the United Kingdom “did not include the colonies” is actually correct, but not for the reasons that you ignorantly believe. In 1801 there were no colonies that could be included. The United States had already declared its independence.
Unfortunately, the uniquely ignorant Meyer has a habit of coming here to display his unending ignorance that is always accompanied by childish insults hurled about to try to hide his ignorance.
His combination of ignorance and use of childish insults is insufferable.
He has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
I’ll rely on memory, with one hand tied behind my back, since even with Google and AI, you still manage to get lost. The Acts of Union never made the American colonies an integral part of the Kingdom. They were possessions of the Crown, not constituent parts of Great Britain. Even Ireland was not a constituent part of Great Britain; that union came very early in the 19th century. Later adjustments to the Acts occurred long after American independence, which may be where your confusion lies.
In an act of mercy, I will help you: think about merging an independent parliament into the Parliament of Westminster. Now do your homework so you can understand what you are talking about.
You remain a fraud, a nutcase, and profoundly ignorant.
The Declaration of Independence is clear to anyone who reads it. The problem isn’t the words; it’s the mindset of those too lazy to read and understand. They behave like schoolchildren acting out instead of learning.
To be fair, I was no different for most of my life.
I first encountered the Declaration in primary school and memorized the opening paragraph beginning with “When in the Course of human events.” I probably saw it again in high school, but like most students, it was just something to memorize, not something to truly examine. I did not return to it again until after I retired from the Navy. Over the past 18 years, I have read it many times.
I can honestly say it was not until I slowed down, studied its structure, and examined the meaning behind its words that I fully understood what it was doing. It is not simply a historical announcement. It is a carefully constructed argument presented to the world explaining the origin of rights and the limits of government authority.
It is written in plain English, but its depth is easy to miss if you read it casually. I certainly did for most of my life.
Is it fair to call such development the development of wisdom?
Good question SM. I don’t know. I think it’s less about wisdom and more about the difference between learning something and actually understanding it. I learned the words when I was young. I memorized them like everyone else. But memorizing words and understanding what they’re saying are two very different things.
Understanding didn’t come until much later, after I’d lived a bit more and took the time to really examine what it was arguing and why it was written. The words stayed the same. My comprehension changed. Learning lets you repeat something. Understanding lets you recognize why it matters.
That’s the difference.
When I talked about wisdom, it wasn’t just the action of reading, like we did in school with Milton, Shakespeare, or Dickinson. Instead, true wisdom begins when the mind senses that something in life is missing. The Declaration of Independence, especially, and the Constitution are easy to read. Why, when in school and learning to read, don’t we begin with these most important documents?
We all saw this coming, first in Europe, thenour cultural and business institutions here and our media/education industry. We knew what it was and where it would lead and yet few did anything stop it and now we anticipate the worst. How did we allow this to happen to Western civilization?
We? Do you represent the commenters here?
You are full of answers, so how did we let it happen? Please ….
Appeasement of stupidity and lawlessness, allowing for the moral decay of our society. Hollywood led total decadance with the driving force of greed and human nature. That’s how…
John Cleese, looking through only his artistic lens and not his critical thinking one, has always been a conditioned anti- conservative. How surprised must he be that his leftist party is not, and has never been, the party of tolerance? What did he not see?
He must be shocked that his leftist party is actually the brutal authoritarian group, censoring and dictating speech, pushing a suicidal agenda by utilizing “big” government rules and regulations, which leftist agendas have ALWAYS pushed. But the authoritarian, leftist concept that Cleese has unwittingly supported will actually come back to bite him, and all of its other supporters, no different than in Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Yugoslavia, etc.
Maybe it doesn’t take that much cerebral cortical processing to be a comedian.
Free speech, and free speech for EVERYONE, is fundamental to ALL our freedoms. Without free speech, we have no freedoms at all.
We’re conversing about free speech, or the lack of it, in the UK.
What’s cooking?
All true, but that doesn’t imply that there are no responsibilities attached to free speech. That question is where we appear to be stuck. What responsibilities go with public speech? Who decides? And how do we respond to irresponsibility?
We have a starting model in Defamation Law, which has long been accepted as an irresponsible and illegal exercise of public speech. It is addressed via private lawsuit, which puts the government is a neutral position, and gives the power of judgments to juries of ordinary Americans — not bureaucrats, not elites, not algorithms.
The two areas where Defamation Law could be improved/expanded:
1) speed up the due diligence process, so that process delay is not available as a defense tactic of the defamer
2) broaden the concept to include ANY attempt to dupe the public for political advantage
What many are missing in this debate is that there are only 2 alternatives….heavyhanded government censorship or anything goes permissiveness. There are nuanced, middle positions that retain a society’s ability to uphold standards of public decency, authenticity and trustworthiness.
To fall for a dichotomization trap, where you have to take sides — which represent the 2 extreme policy endpoints — that’s America being stupid. That’s America letting down our posterity.
I agree, but like you said, WHO gets to determine what is allowed and what is not. That is the BIG question right there.
That is one of many reasons he pbinca is wrong.
If you allow “nuanced” government sanctions on speech – which ever half of the posters here hold power will start imprisoning the other half.
That is why the answer to “who decides” is NEVER GOVERNMENT.
Free speech can not survive the use of FROCE to sanction it, and only government can legitimately use FORCE
Pb
I would like to believe that most normal people would fall more to the middle, however it seems that a minority are the ones creating havoc for all.
So given dueling, fisticuffs etc. were common in the era of the Founders, do you suppose that’s where the saying of “Don’t let your Grizzly Bear mouth get your Canary ass in trouble”, originated?
Why do (did) parents spank their children or was their mouths out with soap when they said reprehensible things, were bad, disrespectful or violent towards others?
Im sure glad Larry Flynt got Hustler legalized under the guise of free speech and man, how about that Maplethorpe Piss Christ, what an artist?!
My point is free speech follows what is acceptable to the social norm, we seem to have been led astray.
Really
Yes really, I call it the Deviation from decency…
“Only a a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need for masters.”
Benjamin Franklin
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
“My point is free speech follows what is acceptable to the social norm, we seem to have been led astray.”
Absolutely NOT.
Free speech does NOT allow government sanctions – FORCE to punish any but a very tiny portion of speech.
The prohibition against government interference in free speech is specifically to protect UNACCEPTABLE speech.
It is to protect Nazis
The MOMENT you say “social norm” in conjunction with law you are headed towards tyranny.
The amazing part about our government is that it allows massive amounts of conduct OUTSIDE the norm.
One poster here would ban Maplethorpes Pi$$ christ and Hustler. Another would ban claims the election is stolen or that our climate is not in crisis.
There is no end to our ability as a society to force conformity on those outside the norms – if we allow it.
“but that doesn’t imply that there are no responsibilities attached to free speech. ”
There are but very very few that can be punished by GOVERNMENT.
And that is the point.
We punish free speech with more speech.
We punish it by diminishing our respect and trust for those who offend us.
We do NOT use FORCE aka govenrment to punish bad speech except in extremely narrow circumstances.
Why are we here debating things that you should have learned in elementary school ?
“That question is where we appear to be stuck.”
Not at all – in the US the boundaries of Government and speech have been very well defined.
We are not stuck, except for minor issues at the fringes or efforts by the left to get arround constraints on government censorship.
we are not “stuck”. we merely have 20% of the country ignorant of the constitution and law on free speech and trying to relitigate matters settled decades if not centuries ago.
“What responsibilities go with public speech?”
The responsibilities are whatever YOU decide. The sanctions are whatever YOU as an individual decide – short of using force.
But with extremely few exceptions there are NO ALLOWABLE govenrment sanctions for speech.
“Who decides?”
Each of us individually,
But we are individually barred from using FORCE to impose that decision.
” And how do we respond to irresponsibility?”
However you as an individual choose – barring that you may not use
FORCE
“We have a starting model in Defamation Law”
False – Times v. Sulivan was decided wrongly.
We should have found defamation laws unconstitutional.
But for now we are stuck with what we have.
“which has long been accepted as an irresponsible and illegal exercise of public speech. ”
Defamation law is CIVIL law – it is still individuals challenging individuals with Government acting as an arbiter.
And while we would have been better off without the tort of defamation, it still does not extend any power to government
“The two areas where Defamation Law could be improved/expanded:”
Yes – eliminate it entirely – let the market punish liars.
“1) speed up the due diligence process, so that process delay is not available as a defense tactic of the defamer”
The process is already fast – depending on the state you either have 1 yr or 2yrs to file a claim.
“2) broaden the concept to include ANY attempt to dupe the public for political advantage”
Absolutely positively NOT. The entire concept of Free Speech is about Individuals
There is NO possible claim of defaming the public.
This is a really really stupid proposal.
It defies critical principles of rights.
There is absolutely possitively no means to make LYING sanctionable by Govenrment.
Nor do we ever want that.
Look arround here – we can disagree over who we think is lying, but absolutely every poster here things half the other posters are egregious liars.
In the US you can only sanction lying where there is a CLEAR actual harm. Breach of contract is a lie where there is harm.
US defamation claims must prove ACTUAL harm or there is no award.
This was an issue in the Bragg/Trump case – even if you accept that Trump “lied” on his business records – there was no harm.
It did not change his taxes, not a single person lost anything they had a right to. SCOTUS – none other than Ginsberg has repeatedly ruled that Fraud MUST include an infringement on REAL property rights. You MUST attempt to take something REAL from someone to be guilty of fraud. You can not commit emotional fraud, or fraudulently deprive people of knowledge.
You must attempt to take from them something they own.
I have dwelled on this – because your lying to the public nonsens ecompletely circumvents a critical constitutional protection.
You can not make lying alone illegal.
Nor do you ever want to – because every one of us is absolutely certain those we disagree with are lying.
You can not sanction people for lying about whether an election was stolen.
You can not sanction them if they falsely claim it was.
You can not sanction them it they falsely claim it was not.
You can however prosecute ACTUAL lawlessness in an election.
The consequences for lying are loss of the trust of those who think you are lying.
“What many are missing in this debate is that there are only 2 alternatives….heavyhanded government censorship or anything goes permissiveness.”
Because there ARE only two alternatives.
“There are nuanced, middle positions that retain a society’s ability to uphold standards of public decency, authenticity and trustworthiness.”
Absolutely not – as YOU noted about – WHO DECIDES.
The worst posible scenario is where such decisions are NUANCED – that is cxcarte blanche for those currently in power to punish people for their views.
It is self evident from THIS BLOG that every poster here thinks half the other posters are LIARS.
And that is EXACTLY why we can not punish lies except under very narrow and specific condictions.
“To fall for a dichotomization trap”
It is not a trap.
I would further note it is the required constitutional norm for ALL law.
The world is full of nuance – our laws are specifically required NOT to be.
Laws must be clear, with bright lines, and must rest on core principles that are clear and have bright lines such that even without ever reading a single law – you still KNOW what is illegal.
Nothing is more dangerous or prone to abuse than Nuanced laws.
All nuance belongs OUTSIDE of govenrment.
You are free as an individual to sanction the speech of conduct of any other individual – short of using force.
You can shun them, boycott them rail against them, but you can NOT use FORCE againt them.
You can use any standard you wish to determine whether the speech or conduct of another deserves sanction.
But you can not use FORCE to convert your standard into law.
“where you have to take sides — which represent the 2 extreme policy endpoints — that’s America being stupid. That’s America letting down our posterity.”
Exactly the opposite.
Law is about bright lines.
Nuance is for individuals.
Politico has reported that Dutch activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek has been banned from entering the UK. She says he got a letter from the UK government informing her that her presence in the UK was “not conducive to the public good”, banning her from travelling there. No due process. No appeals.
The Labor Party allows thousands of Muslims to enter without documents.
The West is intentionally killing itself. Cultural suicide.
https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-bars-far-right-dutch-activist-from-entry/
1000 percent correct. VP Vance and SOS Rubio are preaching this point
. The aesthetics alone would cause most to faint if not stroke out.
Nations have the right to decide who they will let in – there is no due process required.
I think the choices of the UK are bad, and I am pretty sure they do not reflect the views of many brits.
But a nation does not exist if it can not decide who can enter.
John
Do you suppose the nations subject to prior British conquest believed the same to be true?
Europe is done.
Uncounted generations of British soldiers, sailors and airmen are calling out from the grave. They are urging their countrymen to stand fast in the face of this internal and external rubbish which is tearing their country apart. They served and died for a Britain where thoughts and speech weren’t strangled or vilified.
The British must be in heaven 🤔.
Ah the British and their Eurotrash friends are on the march to stamp out ANYTHING that is not polite (in the current regime’s eyes) kinda sorta just like the MULLAH’s of IRAN! Wow, what an epiphany that free speech (the real kind) and not wearing your hijab could be so related. The lack of a hijab on the head of wicked women entices the man to a point of frenzy that he may commit other crimes! The same can be said of FREE SPEECH in the UK (and Wacky Euroland) where utterances that are impolite or even hateful may entice others to commit atrocities like questioning AUTHORITY! This can only be dealt with by using an IRON FIST from the Black Robe Illuminati in IRAN and the UK. Thank goodness for the legal feces geniuses.