We have been discussing the erosion of free speech rights across Europe, particularly within the European Union. The crackdowns on free speech in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France are often the focus of these columns. However, a recent case shows how smaller countries like Malta have joined this effort with a repressive vigor. Fortunately, the prosecution of Matthew Grech, 33, ended in acquittal this month, but not for a lack of effort by the government. The case should shock the conscience of anyone who values this “indispensable right.”
Grech faced up to five months in prison and a fine of 5,000 euros ($5,400) after he discussed his own history abandoning a homosexual lifestyle to become a born-again Christian. Not only did the government prosecute him for discussing his life, but it also charged journalists Mario Camilleri, 44, and Rita Bonnici, 45, for interviewing him.
It was a full frontal attack on both free speech and the free press. The prosecution was brought under Malta’s “Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender and Gender Expression Act.” The law makes it a crime to perform or advertise practices aimed at changing or suppressing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Grech was the first to be prosecuted under the law after LGBTQ activists filed criminal complaints against him following his interview.
Silvan Agius and Christian Attard filed a report alleging that a related Facebook post and the subsequent interview advertised illegal conversion practices and promoted their “efficiency.”
Cynthia Chircop, a volunteer with the Malta LGBTIQ Rights Movement, filed a report with the Cyber Crime Unit that the video had “triggered emotions” of isolation she experienced as a teenager.
The government alleged that the interview constituted “marketing” for the International Foundation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice, an organization associated with Grech that advocates such transitioning away from homosexual lifestyles.
However, Magistrate Monica Vella ruled that sharing a personal account does not constitute marketing the procedures.
She sought to protect “free exploration and development.” However, the law itself was not struck down. The acquittal was secured on the basis that it was a personal account and not marketing.
The country still criminalizes programs that seek to help those who want to transition away from homosexual practices or lifestyles. In my view, such programs should be considered protected under free speech, religious, and associational rights.
Advocates in the United States have attempted analogous bans by other means. Roughly 23 states have laws banning conversion therapy for minors. The Supreme Court recently heard the case of Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors.
As the good professor said, law itself is a full frontal assault on the most basic freedom, freedom of expression – and freedom of the press. A fair judge in America would strike such a law down in a millisecond as violating the First Amendment.
With that said, my one quibble with the article is that the judge who acquitted Grech is on the Court of Magistrates, whereas the power of judicial review (i.e., to strike a law down as inconsistent with the Malta Constitution) lies in different courts, namely, the Constitutional Court, as well as the First Hall of the Civil Court (per google).
If anyone has different information, please let me know.
*the law itself
oldman
Unfortunately, you have taken Turley’s bait with his deliberate distortion of the facts in this case.
There is no free speech issue here.
The statute in question bans the explicit ADVERTISING of conversion therapy, not speech about conversion therapy. The case was dismissed because the government failed to prove that the alleged conduct was explicit ADVERTISING. The advertising of conversion therapy is banned because it is considered harmful in Malta. You are free to say anything you like about such therapy, you just can’t advertise it. The ruling actually confirmed the free speech right to say anything you like about the therapy.
We have similar statutes that ban the ADVERTISING of tobacco products. You are free to say anything you like about tobacco, you just can’t advertise it.
There is no free speech issue in this case in Malta.
Advertising involves speech. You make a false distinction.
I realize you dislike conversion therapy, and I personally have no opinion on it. But your comparing it to lung cancer and emphysema is not persuasive. Any debate over it is ideological, not medical. A good exercise when you think it’s okay for the government to shut down someone else’s speech that you disagree with, is to ask yourself how you would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. So an example I used recently is people who want Jack Phillips to have no First Amendment protections for refusing to bake a cake with a message that violates his beliefs. If he loses then a liberal cake shop owner would have no 1A defense when sued for refusing to bake a cake with the message “homosexual behavior is harmful.” Applying that to this case, how would you feel about a law that punishes advertising a gay pride event, justified on the basis that gay conduct is equivalent to lung cancer? Would you shrug it off as a valid ban on advertising, or would you believe it violates freedom of speech? I think we all know the answer.
You are completely missing the point again, and you bring up completely irrelevant hypotheticals.
I have absolutely no opinion about conversion therapy. I am in no way comparing it to lung cancer or emphysema or any other medical condition. I don’t even understand why you would bring up such a ridiculous red herring. The issues of baking a cake and advertising gay pride events are even more absurd red herrings. You leap to an utterly insane conclusion that I equate gay conduct with lung cancer. You are completely out of your mind with such an absurd conclusion. You are clearly not capable of any kind of rational thought or discussion.
The facts are that Malta simply bans adverting conversion therapy for a fee.
There is no ban on the therapy itself. It is perfectly legal.
There is no ban on talking or speaking about conversion therapy in any kind of public forum. Speech about conversion therapy is perfectly legal and free of government restraint.
The ruling in this case confirmed the right to speak freely about conversion therapy in a public forum.
You just can’t advertise conversion therapy for a fee, just as you can’t advertise tobacco for sale in this country.
Why you wander off into absurd comparisons with lung cancer and advertising gay pride events is completely beyond any rational understanding.
Advertising a gay pride event is in no way equivalent to the ban on Malta’s ban on advertising therapy services for a fee. There are no services or fees involved in simple advertising of an event. The comparison is completely and utterly absurd, bordering on insane.
Any intelligent person with even an ounce of logical reasoning ability would understand the relevance of my hypotheticals. Your silly over the top denunciations of them reveal that either you lack such abilities or are not debating in good faith. My only error was in hoping you might be willing to discuss this topic like a reasonable person. Enjoy your weekend.
oldman
This has been your typical tactic here for years.
When you know you are wrong, simply disengage and end the discussion.
For the record, arguing from absurd hypotheticals is not a reasoned and logical method of debate.
As you typically do here, you set up an absurd straw man based on absurd hypotheticals and then proceed to attack the straw man as a proxy for what was actually said.
All I did was set out the actual facts of this case. You completely ignore the facts and set up an absurd straw man to attack instead.
If you want to debate the facts, then do so, but don’t pull your usual straw man tactics.
Hello NotSoOld: I didn’t infer that this was a case over the law but rather over whether Grech was punishable for offending it. Either way, here’s a link to the jurisdictional parameters of the Court of Magistrates, and I agree with you that this magistrate likely would have no power to strike the law.
https://judiciary.mt/en/the-magistrates/
OT
John Yoo, constitutional scholar, tells the interviewer, “You’re what every professor wants in a student, one who actually reads the Constitution.” In the current debate, the question is whether the president can conduct military operations. John Yoo says the Constitution says only, “The Congress shall have Power To…declare War…,” leaving the president as “commander-in-chief” without qualification.
If you eliminate all the irrelevant and impotent “interpretation,” “doctrine,” “precedent,” etc., you must declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.
But the libs said ZIP about the Constitution, when O-dumber was bombing away.
Can’t have it both ways..
“Conversion therapy” is fake, it has no basis real therapy. It is forced upon minors to get them to conform to the wants of the parents. Conversion therapy is child abuse.
That is exactly why Malta bans the advertising of conversion therapy.
It is harmful.
Before you know it, Anonymous, you should try it….I think you might have success.
“Conversion” therapy is not harmful—it is a choice, among many, that should be protected. The banning of choices is the right arm of totalitarianism. That you FAIL to understand this, and work to silence alternative therapies (by rights), IS THE REAL HARM. You are part of the great apostasy of culture.
The minors sent to conversion therapy do not have a choice.
Yes, it is harmful. To children and to adults. All you need to do is speak to the victims who endured this “therapy” when it was originally promoted in the 1970s. They will tell you of the harm they endured from it.
Danny,
I agree with you that conversion therapy likely would not work on genuine homosexuals because I think [but may be wrong] that it is deeply and biologically embedded during development. It may be like trying to convert a straight person to gay. Not happening.
Basically everything that can go wrong during development will go wrong occasionally. Children are born without limbs, with mixed up organs, and even without brains. Of course sexual preference and identity are sometimes going to go awry.
On the other hand, conversion therapy may help with individuals who have been involved with a social contagion because being gay or transsexual is fashionable. Look how many air-head celebrities have trotted out gay children or, more recently and dangerously, transsexual children. I suspect Munchausen’s by proxy may be at work in some cases, not to mention other social pathologies. Something like conversion therapy may help people who have been victimized by fashionable trends.
It won’t work on someone who is truly gay or transsexual any more than it could change someone who is straight and normal into someone who is gay or transsexual. Try changing in your own mind and you will see what I mean.
On the whole conversion therapy is likely to be less harmful than convincing a child that it is transsexual and chemically arresting development or cutting up organs.
Come to think of it, gay friends of ours have often said they, themselves, tried fighting their preferences earlier in life when the difference first dawned on them and they fought it before finally accepting who they were.
“There’s just some things that leave a man no choice”
“There’s just some things that leave a man no choice.”
Duplication due to interference with free speech by WordPress.
The wants, directions, and moral guidance of parents is CHILD-CARE; the abuse comes from strangers, like you, misleading and maiming children in the name of hedonistic perversion and control.
Turley’s ‘erosion of rights’ narrative is fundamentally contradicted by the conclusion of the case: the defendants were acquitted. It is a curious choice for a legal scholar to ignore a judicial victory for free speech simply to sustain a narrative of repression. By fixating on the initial prosecution while downplaying a verdict that explicitly protected personal testimony, Turley isn’t defending the law—he is ignoring its successful application. The acquittal of Matthew Grech isn’t proof of a ‘crackdown’; it is a complete refutation of Turley’s argument. It appears the Professor is more interested in the alarmism of the charge than the reality of the exoneration. What a crazy way to claim freedom of speech is “under attack” in the EU.
X, that argument makes no sense.
The fact that a prosecution fails does not mean there was no threat to liberty. It means the government tested the boundary and lost. Courts protecting rights after the state stretches a statute is not proof the right was never under pressure. It is proof the pressure existed. By your logic, every failed censorship attempt would somehow prove free speech is perfectly safe.
Turley’s point is obvious to anyone looking at the principle instead of trying to score points. A man and two journalists were prosecuted over an interview and personal testimony. The court ultimately said that went too far. That outcome does not refute the concern. It illustrates it.
Governments test limits. Courts sometimes push back. That tension is exactly how rights erode or survive. You’re celebrating the referee after ignoring the foul.
And that pretty much explains your entire approach here.
Approach huh? Olly, you are the guy who every time trots out long winded and irrelevant statements, weaving inanities into a dense impenetrable cloth that blocks sight of the issue, with you then wearing a philosophers robe.
Its funny coming from you, that you state that X’s argument (it’s not an argument at all) makes no sense.
Much like yourself Ano.
Olly makes far more sense, the the rambling of george/X
Dustoff, It’s bold of you to claim Olly ‘makes sense’ in a sentence that can’t even manage basic punctuation. If you’re going to call someone a ‘rambler,’ you might want to learn how to finish a thought without tripping over your own typos. It’s hard to take a ‘logic’ critique seriously from someone who writes like they’re texting in a hailstorm.
X you have not made sense from the start.
Olly,
Saying that a failed prosecution is a ‘threat to freedom’ is a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ argument. In a democracy, the government doesn’t just make up reasons to harass people; it investigates complaints from citizens to see if a law was actually broken. This is exactly what happened in Malta. The trial isn’t the problem; it’s the protection.
You’re confusing censorship with getting a legal answer. The government didn’t stop the interview from happening; they just asked a judge to decide if the interview broke a new law against illegal advertising. The fact that the judge said ‘no’ doesn’t mean our rights are in danger—it means the system worked perfectly to protect them.
By your logic, the government can never win: if they convict someone, rights are dead; if they let them go, rights are ‘eroding.’ Saying a right is failing because a court protected it is like saying a bridge is ‘collapsing’ because it was strong enough to hold a heavy truck. The acquittal of Matthew Grech isn’t a ‘foul’—it’s the proof that the referee is fair and the rules are working.
In a democracy, the government doesn’t just make up reasons to harass people; it investigates complaints from citizens to see if a law was actually broken.
Isn’t that sweet. Wow! That’s a very comforting civics-textbook version of how government is supposed to work. Reality is a bit less tidy.
History shows that governments in democratic systems sometimes stretch statutes, pursue weak cases, or test legal boundaries, which is exactly why courts exist and why citizens remain skeptical of state power. The fact that a court ultimately steps in does not mean the right was never under pressure. It means the boundary had to be enforced.
That’s precisely what happened in Malta. The state prosecuted a man and two journalists over an interview and personal testimony under a statute banning advertising conversion therapy. The court dismissed the case because the speech did not amount to advertising. In other words, the government tested the boundary between regulation and speech, and the court said no. You treat the acquittal as if it erases the prosecution. It doesn’t. Courts pushing back after the state stretches a statute over speech is not proof the right was never threatened. It’s proof the referee had to step in.
And there’s another reality your theory ignores: the process itself is often the punishment. Wealthy defendants may be able to withstand years of investigation, legal bills, and public accusation. Ordinary people often cannot. Many plead out simply to end the ordeal.
So no, the system working in the end does not mean the pressure on the right never existed. It means someone had to endure the process long enough for the court to stop it.
Olly, you’re missing the point entirely. You’re treating a successful defense like a defeat. In the real world, rights aren’t just ‘given’; they are defined through the legal system. If the government can lose a case—which they just did—it means the checks and balances are healthy. Calling an acquittal ‘proof of erosion’ is like saying a shield is ‘failing’ because it successfully blocked a sword. The shield didn’t break; it did exactly what it was designed to do.
Olly, your point about legal fees is a non-sequitur. You’re trying to use the fact that ‘trials are expensive’ to prove that ‘free speech is being destroyed.’ Those are two different things.
The cost of a lawyer doesn’t change the fact that the court officially protected the right to speak. If your house survives a storm because the roof was strong, you don’t say the roof ‘failed’ just because the storm was loud and scary. Grech didn’t ‘plead out’; he won. Using a hypothetical ‘ordinary person’ to ignore a real-world victory is just a way to avoid admitting the system worked.
Your argument assumes that if a court ultimately rules correctly, then there was never any threat to the right in the first place.
History shows that’s simply not true. Checks and balances exist precisely because governments push boundaries and courts are asked to draw the line. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don’t. If your theory were correct, then every time a court upheld a bad law we would have to conclude that no rights were violated. By that logic the courts that upheld Jim Crow laws would prove that segregation posed no threat to equal protection. History tells us otherwise.
The existence of a referee does not mean fouls never occur. It means the system requires someone to call them.
In Malta, the government prosecuted a man and two journalists over an interview and personal testimony. The court ruled that speech did not amount to illegal advertising and dismissed the case. Good. The referee blew the whistle. But the whistle does not prove there was no foul on the play.
And pretending it does misunderstands why checks and balances exist in the first place.
Olly,
Olly, comparing a successful free speech acquittal to Jim Crow is a spectacular logical reach. Jim Crow was a failure of the system to protect rights; the Malta case is the system successfully protecting them. Using a ‘broken bridge’ from history to argue that a ‘strong bridge’ is currently collapsing makes no sense.
An investigation isn’t a ‘foul’—it’s due process. In a democracy, when a citizen files a complaint, the state is legally required to look into it. The ‘referee’ didn’t just blow the whistle on a bad play; she ruled that no foul ever happened.
Jim Crow is precisely the same as these stupid EU laws.
It is a system of laws to inflict punishment on people for excercising their rights, despite social pressures to conform.
You seem to forget that Jim Crow was LAWS.
Jim crow laws were passed because even in the incredibly racist post war south, social pressures were insufficient to force people and businesses to fall into line and oppress blacks.
Store would not have separate white and black sales floors, restrooms, and water fountains, diners, Railroads, Bus companies would not have separate white and black seating,
The law had to FORCE people to act as those in power wanted because social pressures were not enough.
Left wing nuts like you pi$$ all over people who say things you do not like – you are free to do so.
But they you used govenrment and government funded NGOs to coerce private actors to censor speech you did not like..
The FACT – as Musk demonstrated with X is that Companies do not censor their customers on their own.
Doing so is massively expensive and unprofitable. Just like before Jim Crow railroads refused to have separate cars for blacks and whites.
I know you idiotically beleive otherwise, but the FACT is that Free markets NATURALLY move TOWARDS greater individual freedom – not away from it.
Not because the companies involved want to, but because freedom is less costly .
“You’re treating a successful defense like a defeat.”
Correct, because it is.
If a bully takes a swing at you, and you respond by coldcocking them – you have Lost your right to live peacefully.
Rights do not require you to act to protect them.
” In the real world, rights aren’t just ‘given’; they are defined through the legal system.”
False, rights exist by virtue of the fact that humans have free will.
Through to 1865 in half this country slavery was lawful. YOUR argument assert that was therefore MORAL and acceptable.
Why is slavery wrong ? Many slave owners argued that they took better care of their slaves than they would of themselves – and in some cases that was true – and could still be true. Would slavery today be moral if the slave was better off than if they were free ?
Slavery is not a violation of a persons rights because it is illegal.
It is a violation of a persons rights because it violates a persons free will.
In the real world Rights precede govenrment – not the other way arrround.
“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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”
The purpose of government is to create rights through the legal system.
It is to secure the rights givern to us by god – or nature if you prefer.
They rights we are entitled to by virtue of the fact that humans have free will.
Any prosecution of a person for excercising natural rights is a threat to freedom.
” In a democracy, the government doesn’t just make up reasons to harass people; ”
ROFL
Two centuries ago John Stuart Mill demonstrated EXACTLY the opposite – no form of govenrment is more tyranical than democracy – because there is no limit to the drive of people to torture their neighbors, and majorities can get away with far more intrusion on peoples rights than Kinds or dictators.
This case in particular is about making up reasons to harrass people
“it investigates complaints from citizens to see if a law was actually broken.”
If I call the people and claim you are a pedophile do they start by investigation YOU ? By examing your bank records, your social media, hauling you in for questioning, questioing your neighbors ?
Or do they start by considering MY credibility ? Do I provide more than an allegation, do I provide any evidence that my allegation is true ?
The investigation of an allegation ALWAYS starts with the credibility of the allegation.
It is trivial to destroy people merely by getting enough people to make allegations – unless there is a requirement for credibility and evidence to open an investigation.
We went through ALL OF THIS with the collusion delusion.
” This is exactly what happened in Malta. The trial isn’t the problem; it’s the protection.”
No it is the failure.
“You’re confusing censorship with getting a legal answer.”
No censorship is ANY government action that chills free speech.
Merely investigating free speech is censorship.
“By your logic, the government can never win” when they are seeking to violate natural rights – correct they govenrment can never win.
It can not even investigate.
“Protection, therefore, against tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
OLLY
You are completely and utterly missing the point here.
There is no free speech issue in this case.
The defendants were charged under a statute that bans the ADVERTISING of conversion therapy, which is regarded as harmful in Malta. The case was dismissed because the government failed to prove that the alleged conduct amounted to explicit ADVERTISING. The ruling confirmed that people are perfectly free to say whatever they like about conversion therapy as long as they do not explicitly advertise services for the therapy.
The ruling CONFIRMED free speech rights in Malta.
We have a similar statute banning explicit advertising of tobacco, because it is harmful.
You have the right to say anything you like about tobacco products, but you cannot explicitly advertise the sale of tobacco.
You are trying to shoehorn a ban on advertising harmful products into some sort of free speech issue.
You are wrong.
The process is the punishment
Fundamentally you say? Fundamentally speaking your comment is a jumble of words. It needs repeating George. Turley made no argument whatsoever, he opined on the case and the outcome and tossed in the obligatory warning from the perspective of a constitutional lawyer. As he always does.
It seems senility is the state of mind across this blog with all these oldies, all professing their intellectualism, to a mob of MAGAots.
while yo may be congratulating yourself on the many contortions of logic on display in your post,
what you so blindingly fail to see is that Turley is erring on the side of caution.
When fighting the destruction of goodness, morality, and culture—by the manic-leftist-hedonists—
he warns that one positive outcome is NO reason to lay down arms against a brigade of the mentally ill in demand of total power.
And yes, certain kinds of “free speech ARE [still] under attack,” especially in the EU, globally. What would these authoritarians do without your vassal mentality???
Diana Bec, It’s hard to take a ‘warning’ seriously when it requires ignoring a total court victory. Calling it ‘erring on the side of caution’ is just a fancy way of saying Turley is ignoring the facts to keep his outrage narrative alive.
If the ‘authoritarians’ were really in control, they wouldn’t have let an independent judge acquit the defendants and set a protective precedent. You’re so addicted to the ‘war’ imagery that you’re treating a win for free speech as a defeat. It turns out the only thing being ‘suppressed’ here is your ability to admit that the legal system actually worked.
False.
The US constitution states “Congress shall make no law” with respect to rights.
It should not have to state that, nor does it change anything consequential that this is in another country.
When one must face criminal charges for excercising ones rights – that right has already been infringed upon.
Absolutely – the wrong verdict can make the damage worse.
But anything short of punishment for those who passed an infringing law, those who infringed on a right by overbroad reading of a law, and those who allowed a trial infringing on a right to procede at all, is a loss of ones rights.
It is absolutely free speech under attack.
This is merely one example of free speech under attack in the EU.
Free speech is actually under attack across the world – and that is not new.
It has also never been as well protected in Europe as the US.
But it has been far more protected in the EU than it is today.
Your own ideotic argument that we can some how a priori distinguish between harmful speech and unpopular opinion is lunacy.
YOUR speech is absolutely totally completely HARMFUL – you lie and delude people and you and those who believe you make abysmally bad decisions based on your speech.
But those of us who recognize natural rights still protect YOUR right to lie and to attempt to persuade others of vile and ludicrous lies.
We do not punish speech because of the harm it MIGHT cause. We do not punish speech because of the harm it is likely to cause.
WE punish speech for the harm it has ACTUALLY caused – and even then almost exclusively only speech that has lead DIRECTLY to some form of violence.
Anonymous, crude oil prices during the Biden administration (2021–2025) experienced extreme volatility, driven by post-pandemic demand surges and the Russia-Ukraine war, peaking near $120 a barrel in 2022 before stabilizing. Despite political debate, U.S. domestic production reached record highs, while the administration utilized the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to mitigate price spikes.
The strait of hormuz is being reopened. Trump is helping oil tankers in the strait of hormuz.
https://www.wfaa.com/video/money/consumer/trump-administration-is-trying-to-stabilize-oil-prices-by-helping-tankers-in-the-strait-of-hormuz/287-98edcaf8-d9d6-420d-ae58-390f5efc7390.
Reality is a difficult thing to deal with by some people.
Thinkitthrough, still not thinking things through. If ‘dealing with reality’ means celebrating the need for military escorts and taxpayer-funded war insurance just to get a single barrel of oil through a global choke point, then yes, reality is very difficult. It’s quite the achievement to fix a crisis created by launching strikes in the first place.
It’s also a strange ‘reality’ to criticize the previous administration for price volatility during a global pandemic, while ignoring that oil prices just surged toward $100 because of the current war we started. Blaming the past for ‘demand surges’ while praising the present for record-high insurance premiums and a military blockade is an impressive bit of mental gymnastics. I suppose we should all be grateful for the ‘rescue’ from the crisis the rescuers started.
From malta gay rights to oil prices. Now that’s what I call Thinking It Through.
This piece by Turley is completely irrelevant nonsense designed for no other purpose than to agitate the MAGA mob.
The issue in Malta is not one of “free speech”. The statute in this case is one that bans ADVERTISING of conversion therapy, not free speech. The case was dismissed because the government failed to prove that the alleged conduct amounted to ADVERTISING.
Malta does not ban free speech, and they have statutes in place that protect free speech. This case can in no way be interpreted as an infringement of free speech.
The Maltese statute bans advertising of conversion therapy, which they consider harmful. That is their right to hold that opinion. The elected representatives of the Maltese people enacted this legislation, and presumably the people agree with their representatives.
Similarly, the US bans advertising of tobacco products, which are considered harmful.
The same principle of banning advertising of harmful products applies in both countries.
There is absolutely no issue of free speech in this case.
If Turley is aware of this distinction, then he is being deliberately obtuse and misleading.
If he is not aware of the details of this case then he is just spouting the same biased story being told on Fox, without actually checking the facts for himself.
The comments today are an interesting, sudden?, spontaneous?? collection of criticisms and put-downs of the author, like an unexpected hailstorm blowing in out of the west. I wonder if the usual readers of his blog (including myself) were individually moved to start the blitz, or if, just maybe, there’s some astroturf on the field.
Has no one lambasting Turley – not a single thrower of rocks or heaver of ice chunks – ever heard or suspected that “the process is the punishment”? If a law allowed for prosecution and fining or incarceration of anyone who takes/supports/publicizes a given unfavored or forbidden idea, and the charged defendant who prevails in court after spending $XY,000 of his own money to mount a defense is subsequently either exonerated by verdict or succeeds in having the charge dismissed by the court, who wants to defend that such unsuccessful prosecutions do not suppress or penalize disfavored speech? Really? OR, is suppression of such heresy more a feature than a bug?
I will terminate my comment here, because I must now go and prepare for my two minutes of hate.
Beautifully articulated Carey. Well done!
Nice Cary, but the intro was… um… not so. Ya see Olly, that’s how its done.
Carey Allison, It’s funny how a ‘hailstorm’ of criticism is always called astroturfing when people just happen to disagree with a famous author. Maybe it’s not a conspiracy—maybe the author just made a weak argument, and people noticed.
You’re right that ‘the process can be the punishment,’ but you’re using that idea to ignore the actual result. In the Malta case, the government didn’t just ‘pick’ an idea to hate; they followed a law passed by a democratically elected parliament to protect people from harm. When the court ruled in favor of the defendant, it didn’t ‘suppress’ speech—it set a rule that protects everyone’s speech from now on.
If the process was truly meant to be the punishment, the judge wouldn’t have been allowed to dismiss the case so clearly. Claiming that a successful legal defense is proof of ‘heresy suppression’ is a total contradiction. It’s like saying a person who wins a race was actually ‘suppressed’ because they had to run the miles.
Enjoy your ‘Two Minutes of Hate,’ but don’t be surprised when ‘reality’ has a few more minutes to say in response.
Carey
Your response is a prime example of what Turley is trying to achieve with this irrelevant nonsensical piece today.
His aim is to agitate the MAGA mob, with a false interpretation of a case that has absolutely nothing to do with “free speech”.
There is no issue of free speech here. The charges related to the advertising of conversion therapy. The case was dismissed because the government failed to prove that there was explicit advertising.
The ruling actually CONFIRMED free speech rights in Malta. You can say anything you like about the therapy, you just can’t advertise it.
However, Turley is trying to shoehorn an advertising case into a free speech issue, and people like you take the bait.
Instead of Turley’s daily dose of irrelevant nonsense from irrelevant countries far away, and his daily shilling for his stupid little books, here is some actual news of relevance to this country.
The price of oil has skyrocketed due to the war in the Middle East.
Secretary of Treasury, Scott Bessent said yesterday that the Trump may now lift sanctions on Russian oil to try and reduce oil prices. This would provide a massive injection of cash to fund Putin’s war machine in Ukraine
So Trump wants to help Putin who is helping Iran, who is targeting Americans.
I am almost positive, that’s called TREASON, since treason requires a state of war to exist.
If Donald Trump was working directly for Vladimir Putin what would he be doing differently??
I think he is too stupid to be an agent, but he does seems to be a stooge.
I think the proper term is “useful idiot”
All this while Putin provides satellite intelligence that helps Iran target our troops…..
Putin is a great believer in Trump’s exhortation to “Buy American”
Donald Trump is the best purchase Putin ever made.
as reported by PBS? And you fell for that?
Actually, Bessent made the announcement on Fox, talking to Larry Kudlow.
Her is a link to reporting from The Hill, regarding what he said.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5772316-oil-prices-russia-india-iran-bessent/
Not Bessent’s announcement. The claim that Putin is providing Iran with satellite intelligence to target our troops. That is a PBS fabrication that you seem to believe.
That would be the dem-o-rat party
Conquer Antarctica?
Ah let’s see. Oh, I know, giving money to Iran, winking allowance for Putin to invade Ukraine, open our borders, spend trillions to cause 9% inflation, create no-bail to allow violent criminals to roam free. You know, all the things that Biden and Dems did and continue to do.
@hullbobby
Here’s a partial list of the Biden years transgressions for handy reference:
Covid response
Inflation
Open borders
DEI, CRT
FBI running rampant on citizens
Defund the police
‘Cancellation’
Dangerous and patently false rhetoric
Massive spending
Complicit media
NGOs
Massive fraud
Influence peddling
Lawfare
Riots
Afghanistan withdrawal
Ukraine
Iran deal
Unconstitutional student loan forgiveness
Ministry of truth
Election interference
Installing candidates without elections
Neutered military
Eroding schools
Reckless climate initiatives
Men in women’s spaces
Transitioning children
Full term abortion
Censorship, attacks on free speech
Declaring non-existent amendments
And that’s a partial list.
so what, got anything to say about Malta?
Hullbobby,
It takes a unique brand of cognitive dissonance to fixate on 2022 inflation—driven by a once-in-a-century pandemic and global supply chain collapse—while oil prices just surged 35% in a single week due to the current administration’s choice to escalate in the Middle East.
Blaming the last guy for ‘allowing’ invasions is a bold strategy when we’re currently forcing taxpayers to fund a $20 billion ‘reinsurance’ bailout just to get ships to move through a blockade this administration triggered.
Complaining about Biden’s ‘spending’ while we sink billions into naval escorts for a war of choice isn’t fiscal conservatism—it’s an expensive irony. But do carry on about 2022; at this rate, the ‘Trump Inflation’ from Hormuz-driven energy spikes will make the post-pandemic recovery look like the good old days.”
Yet george, you said NOTHING about the 4 long years of Biden gas prices…
His specialty is free speech controversies. You’re wasting your time telling him to focus on something else.
How about asking him politely to focus some of his formidable intellect and passion for freedom of expression on the war being waged on transgender people in the USA? As he has noted previously he advocated for gay marriage in the past. Even if he agrees with the new laws in Kansas isn’t that a relevant topic for this blog?
There is no “war being waged on transgender people in the USA”. There is a reaction to the war being waged by transgender activists against all Americans, particularly women and children.
Maybe you can work that comment and weave it into gay rights in Malta.
With Anonymous there’s always a catch word. In this instance the catch word is may. Trump may lift sanctions on Russian oil. Nowhere to be found is a statement saying Trump has lifted sanctions on Russian oil. Doubting is scary. Doubt makes you vulnerable. If you’ve built your entire sense of self around a set of beliefs, then questioning those beliefs is a kind of self-destruction. This is why so many people cling to beliefs that, from the outside, seem obviously flawed. It’s not that they can’t see the cracks, but rather that acknowledging the cracks is terrifying. Anonymous is very afraid. Everything
rustles.
So from gay rights in malta to russian oil Whew ….
Thinkitthrough
Trump has ALREADY lifted sanctions on Russian oil to allow India to resume purchases from Russia.
Bessent made the announcement yesterday on Fox Business talking to Larry Kudlow.
He also said that Trump will lift sanctions for other countries to resume purchases from Russia.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5772316-oil-prices-russia-india-iran-bessent/
Perhaps a little more honesty and truth from you would be helpful.
U.S. issued a temporary waiver of sanctions on India’s purchase of Russian oil (1) for 30 days, and (2) limited to the Russian oil already stranded at sea on tankers (because of the Middle East conflict) with no buyers/customers coming forward and (3) “with no significant financial benefit to the Russian government,”
https://x.com/SecScottBessent/status/2029714253725262232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
That is still lifting the sanctions so that Putin gets the revenue.
Let’s see. The leftist say that they are old enough to make a decision at ten years old but they’re not old enough to change their minds at twenty one. Why is it so important to keep people under control on the left? Why are they so intent on destroying the first amendment to protect boys in girls locker rooms.
Obsession?
TiT,
It is rather curious, their desire to control what others think, say, language to use, ideas, even economics.
Perhaps a lack of self control on their own part?
Upstate, I think of it as the wee wee obsession. If they’re hear illegally they can put it any where they
want and they’re back on the street the next day. These are the ones who are in love with it.
Then there are those who want you to chop it off because they hate it so much. Just for good measure to console themselves they are only satisfied when they brain wash a boy into hating his penis and a girl into hating her breasts and her vagina. To put it simply they are harming other people due to their obsession. Even the rape of a child’s mind and body are acceptable in worship of the gods of the sexual organs. Call it what it is.
Looks like the boys are grooming each other… talking about their wee wees
You need help
No thanks, not into wee wee grooming upstate farmer.
Anonymous you are into wee wee grooming. We have not forgotten that you supported books that depicted ten year old boys having sex with one another on the shelfs of the school libraries in Florida.
I find it interesting that when I bring up your position on this matter you never deny that you posted your position in favor of allowing such books in the public schools.
We will not forget that wee wee grooming was your thing then and now.
Hopefully you’re addressing Turley’s post. BTW, Malta has no 1st Amendment, that’s strictly a USA concept referring citizen/government interaction. What they do have is Article 413, guarantees the right to hold opinions, receive and communicate ideas and information without interference. It is not absolute and can be curbed. Really big difference.
TiT, I think the mistake is trying to understand the fringe itself. Every society has fringe movements on the left and the right. That’s normal. The better question is why those ideas sometimes gain traction.
Ironically, the crazier the idea, the more the “normies” tend to ignore it. Most people assume it’s just a gnat and will disappear if they don’t give it attention. So the fringe keeps pushing while the majority shrugs and moves on.
Add media amplification or institutional support, and suddenly the idea gets oxygen. Meanwhile the people who oppose it often aren’t opposing it with the same level of energy the activists are supporting it.
So the real lesson isn’t trying to decode the fringe.
Don’t try to understand the crazy. Try to understand why it works.
Don’t try to understand the crazy. Well said olly. So should we do the same with you then?
The leftist say that they are old enough to make a decision at ten years old but… got a source for that statement?
The part that strikes me about cases like this is not the subject matter but the deeper question of formation.
Every society is forming its citizens into something. The only real question is whether that formation is deliberate and free, or passive and imposed.
In a free society people are formed through families, faith, communities, debate, and lived experience.
Individuals wrestle with ideas, hear different perspectives, and ultimately make choices about their own lives.
But when the state begins policing which personal experiences may even be discussed, formation shifts.
Citizens are no longer being formed through open inquiry but through restriction. The lesson becomes clear: some topics are not to be explored, some experiences are not to be shared, and some conclusions are not permitted.
That is not merely regulation. That is a quiet attempt to form citizens into something else entirely: silent, compliant, and dependent on the state to decide which ideas are acceptable.
A republic requires the opposite. It requires citizens capable of hearing ideas they dislike and thinking through them for themselves.
You obviously do not realize that Turley’s opinion is a bout a foreign citizen, a foreign country called Malta, 5,000 miles away. Your screed has no bearing on a Maltese citizen or citizens
Anonymous, your approach to this blog reminds me of Beria’s famous line under Stalin: Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.
You don’t engage ideas. You pick a target and then manufacture some objection to the person.
In this case the objection is especially weak. Professor Turley is clearly discussing a case involving free speech, what he calls an indispensable right. The fact that the example comes from Malta is precisely the point. These kinds of legal theories about regulating speech often appear in one jurisdiction and then spread to others.
In fact, as Turley notes, 23 U.S. states already regulate conversion therapy in some form.
So yes, the case occurred in Malta. The principle involved is much broader, and that is exactly why Turley wrote about it.
You whine like a little girl when called out for you theory nonsense. Lots of words that have no applicability, let alone any sense.
“So yes, the case occurred in Malta. The principle involved is much broader … Turley wrote about it. “Wrong. If so, then apply your nonsense it to the far eastern nations and their respective laws. Or an eskimo society. The jungles of the Amazon . Turley addressed only a single instance in a country of 500,000. Not the planet.
You have no idea what the laws are within Malta and by extension in the EU on that subject. Turley noted a single instance and extrapolated. You have an ignorant world view. You’re a typical ignorant American who thinks European societal norms are transferable to your imaginery world and then you slide in to your typical pompous screed.
Olly your ideas are always the same idea just rearranging the sentences every time. One size does not fit all.
OLLY
Your pompous philosophizing is irrelevant.
The issue in Malta is not one of “free speech”. The statute in this case is one that bans ADVERTISING of conversion therapy, not free speech. The case was dismissed because the government failed to prove that the alleged conduct amounted to ADVERTISING.
Malta does not ban free speech, and they have statutes in place that protect free speech. This case can in no way be interpreted as an infringement of free speech.
The Maltese statute bans advertising of conversion therapy, which they consider harmful. That is their right to hold that opinion. The elected representatives of the Maltese people enacted this legislation, and presumably the people agree with their representatives.
Similarly, the US bans advertising of tobacco products, which are considered harmful.
The same principle of banning advertising of harmful products applies in both countries.
There is absolutely no issue of free speech in this case.
If Turley is aware of this distinction, then he is being deliberately obtuse and misleading.
If he is not aware of the details of this case then he is just spouting the same biased story being told on Fox, without actually checking the facts for himself.
Anonymous, you’re obsessing over the map while missing the point entirely.
The founding generation had been formed to recognize when an inalienable right was being tested, regardless of where the example occurred. Today many people no longer see the world through that lens. They don’t instinctively recognize threats to liberty. They instinctively recognize threats to their tribe.
So when Turley posts a case about speech being stretched in Malta, you stare at the globe and announce that Malta is 5,000 miles away, as if geography resolves the principle.
It doesn’t.
You’re arguing location. The rest of us are discussing liberty. But that distinction probably sounds abstract if your entire approach to this blog is Beria’s old method: show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.
OLLY
Unfortunately, you are the one that is entirely missing the point here, as I pointed out in my post at 10:09am. (I am not Anon at 9:49am)
As I pointed out, there is absolutely no free speech issue in this case.
This is not a “case about speech being stretched in Malta” as you claim.
The statute here is one that bans ADVERTISING of conversion therapy that the Maltese people regard as harmful. The case was dismissed because the government failed to prove that the allegations amounted to advertising.
There was no free speech issue involved.
If anything, the case CONFIRMED the right to free speech in Malta, in that the court ruled that the defendants are free to say anything they like about conversion therapy as long as they do not explicitly advertise services for such therapy.
The US has a similar ban on advertising tobacco products because they are harmful. People are free to say anything they like about tobacco, as long as they do not explicitly advertise the products.
This is the exact situation and principle at play in Malta.
This piece by Turley is irrelevant nonsense.
You keep repeating the same point as if it resolves the issue. It doesn’t.
Yes, the statute concerns advertising conversion therapy. But the government still prosecuted a man and two journalists over an interview and personal testimony. The court dismissed the case precisely because that speech did not amount to advertising. That is exactly what a government testing the boundary between regulation and speech looks like.
Courts pushing back after the state stretches a statute does not prove the right was never under pressure. It proves the pressure existed and the court stopped it.
Your tobacco comparison also misses the mark. The issue here was not a commercial ad campaign. It was a discussion and personal account that prosecutors tried to treat as illegal promotion. In other words, the state tried to stretch a statute over speech and the court said no.
That outcome doesn’t make Turley’s point irrelevant. It illustrates it. You’re focusing on the label “advertising.” The rest of us are looking at the principle involved when governments begin prosecuting speech and letting courts sort it out later.
Strange events in Malta. As a physician I had a lot of questions about the efficacy of conversion therapy for homosexuals. It had a poor record for “success” in converting homosexuals to a “straight life”. Some types of conversion therapy were far out there, as far as the science was concerned but I never saw the reason for the state banning it.
Most of the laws I saw banning conversion therapy seemed very general and I wondered how they could be enforced if they were challenged. I believe most bans were done to protect children from forced conversion then the states went overboard.
If an adult wants to try conversion therapy, as long as it has no threats to their health and they have been appraised of the risk then I have no objection. If they wish to do nothing about their homosexuality, then that is fine too.
Simply discussing your life and some of your choices in your life is none of the states’ business, as long as you don’t attack or force yourself upon other people..
I don’t remember this happening that much in Europe until the European Union came into being.
I feel the European Union and their added layer of government has divorced the Superstate and member Nations from their people. Technocrats, NGO’s and Movements seem to have the ear of government and not the people.
You reference yourself as knowing all European medical systems and policies but you’re just an american nurse. Disconnect much?
Never seen blood from a fish?
DustOff,
Right? Our leftist friends are ever so desperate to make themselves . . . something.
Translate that for the public.
Dustoff you are truly the dumbest thing human kind has ever encountered on the internet.
Why? For noting that fish blood, with a few exceptions, bleed red blood?
Pretty deep stuff dude.
Upstate. I guess the Ano’s here have never fished.
DustOff,
Or passed a elementary science class.
Upstate
LOL
LOL… Try harder Ano. Typical child like insults
Not anon Dustoff, but your response to the other anon is what then? Not “child like”?
Sure cry baby.
I Quit My Office Job and Found Freedom Online: Here’s My Story The office environment was draining me emotionally and physically, so I decided to make a change. Now, I work online and earn 85 per hour doing what I love. It wasn’t an easy journey, but two years later, I can proudly say my life has changed for the better!
Here’s what I do and how you can too……… https://lnk.ua/tEAxR7FfS
Me too and now I’m a billionaire.
Come On Man! Europe is the OG of freak subculture and the Eurotrash Illuminati want to ensure the deck of cards subcultures are mainstreamed so there can be no coalescing around any unifying attributes! The Anything Goes continent then wants to export that poster child of weirdness to the rest of the world except in communist and Islamic countries because they will actually kill people for that behavior! The decadent West is a prime candidate for following the Eurotrash Way!!!
“The country still criminalizes programs that seek to help those who want to transition away from homosexual practices or lifestyles.”
In the USA one can be become a millionaire superstar peddling their homo lifestyle and gender transition stories. Ain’t America great!
As with abortions, this is an attempt to limit what information people are given. Is the left so afraid of giving people all options that they must outlaw the discussion?
I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say to all of this? Let’s ask Olly. So, Olly, what’s your take? Why didn’t the FF’s forsee this?
I suppose we’re due for a sequel: “The Maltese Fascist”. Nobody dives more deeply and quickly into Fascism than leftwing radicals, on both sides of the Atlantic.
The rights involved are scientifically curious. From a physics viewpoint, it seems there is a “conservation law” in place. That is to say, when one group gains a little more power, another group loses the same amount. In the Malta case, the broader law about speech in toto can be called the Conservation of Speech Rights. In particular, the LGBTIQ Rights Movement has gained power, while people discussing special cases become liable if the LGBTIQ Movement complains.
In England, we have recently seen that native girls have lost sexual rights to certain Islamic gangs that have gained them, this time to avoid “offending” them. In the USA, the call for diversity came at the expense of meritocracy. Indeed, the entire Bill of Rights in the US Constitution came at the expense of delimiting the rights of government. Now many want to give (some) of them back.
Scientifically curious? I think more politically curious.
“In England, we have recently seen that native girls have lost sexual rights to…” Sexual rights?
And who is we?
I think the old geezer has an issue with cognizance. He meant gang rapes by Pakistanis. Going on some 20 years now. I guess not much different than the wave of attack’s on children by pedophiles in the USA. Going on some 20 years now. Curiously when Obama was president.
gdonaldallen,
Great comment.
Power to one small group to the determent of all others.
What small group? What is the detriment?
Thanks. You could also cast these thought in terms of a zero-sum game.
We share the same perspective on the transfer of rights from one group to another though I hadn’t considered expressing it in terms of physics. I noticed several years ago, pre-dating the rise of transgenderism, that the preferences of certain favored groups had been raised to the stature of rights and these special, new rights came at the expense of the rights of those outside the group. The ideal of our system of rights, that is currently under attack, is that we all share equally in the protection of those inalienable rights. That ideal is under assault here and abroad as political parties seek to form constituencies for their accretion of power over the governed. The irony is that once the rights that define individual liberty are transferred to government, we all, favored and disfavored alike, will share the burden of an oppressive, unaccountable authoritarian government. Creating favored interest groups is just a step in that direction.
In terms of physics? Seriously? Looks like you just out-AOC’d more than AOC.
Let’s also keep in mind, your observations about transg. are hardly statically relevant.
Liberals are so tender everything triggers them, they can’t stand to debate or have opposing thoughts from anyone else and want to imprison or kill everyone with a different opinion. No wonder liberalism is now considered a mental illness disorder. Liberals should also never be anywhere any kind of power because of their mental illness.
“Liberals are so tender everything triggers them, they can’t stand to debate or have opposing thoughts …” Boy you got that wrong, you should look at this blog. The hint of the slightest questioning of MAGA, they MAGAots scream, traitor, commie, marxist, liberal, even moron … I leave anything out?
“(Did) I leave anything out?” Yeah, common sense, logic, fairness and intelligence.
All characteristics that you do not have. Never had, never will have. Nor do the others MAGAots here.
There 43 comments (AI sourced) directed at others here of you screaming and swearing and insulting.
So spare us the MGAG crap. You’re a disgusting, twisted bully.
BTW, your use of English grammar is laughable.
Mary, you seem nice. Well, not nice but actually horrible.
HullBobby,
Just a reflection of what they really are like.
Notice she has to use different handles to make herself look like . . . something.
something? is that MAGAot code for gays? Got a problem with gays huh?
Of course not. Dont be ridiculous. I have gay friends and family. Something is in reference to whatever it is you are trying to be. To which, we have no idea. You just make comments to be . . . something.
Are you trolling again farmer? Are you trying to tell us your gay?
STFU, ANON. YES, YOU’RE GAY BUT EXPECTED TO BE MORAL, RYAN WHITE. YFI . THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT.
THIS BS ABOUT FREE SPEECH. IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. No lawsuits for any speech. Funny how the congress EXEMPTS itself isn’t it. The there’s coercion by deals as in testimony for immunity. I’D RATHER GO TO JAIL. Then consider Salman Rushdie.
Upstate, I swear they are trying to bombard the site with nonsensical multiple comments as a form of heckler’s veto. Notice how Anonymous replies to himself multiple times.
As long as we have people like you Thinkitthrough, Lin and many others the site will remain enjoyable. I just can’t understand why they don’t end the ability to go as Anonymous.
And also attacks women. Still beating your ex-wife?
HullBobby,
Well said.
Red meat Saturday. Dive in MAGAots.
Plus the libs can’t wait to jump in.
Talk about chumming the waters.
Fishermen do not chum with red meat, aka beef. As an idiot you knew that.
If illiberals would not get “triggered” so easily and have meltdowns, the good professor would not have anything to point out. How is it his fault illiberals make up dumb laws?
MAGAs get triggered 10x easier than liberals. Look at their freakout over Bad Bunny.
Upstatefgramer is a low IQ MAGA drone. He doesn’t realize his responses are “triggered” to what someone else comments.
So you support prosecuting people who make public their desire to transition away from homosexuality? If so, here’s a chance to make your case; if not, what’s your point? Refuse to answer and readers will know you’re just spewing brainless hate.
Yep, brainless hate.
It’s anthropology. The mating habits of primates including Bonobos historical and contemporary…
Jeez