Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk, has been the subject of a shocking level of personal attacks and conspiracy theories. The latest such example involves a site called Project Constitution, which posted an allegation (with a recording of the purported voice of Erika Kirk) that she helped recruit underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. It is untrue, but other posters soon spread the viral claim.
As a public figure, Kirk has a higher burden in bringing defamation claims. There are also free speech protections for the statement of opinions, even unhinged opinions. However, some of these attacks appear to cross the line.
The most recent posting declared that it had acquired a “bombshell” audio file and “verified its authenticity.” It then affirms that “The voice is undeniably Erika Kirk’s. There is no mistaking it. And what she says on that call is absolutely damning.”
The posting maintains that this is a “statement of fact” and “It’s not a rumor. It’s not a theory. This is a HUGE story. This is the confirmation we’ve all been waiting for.”
Yet, these sensational claims were followed by a disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This post is my personal opinion and interpretation of publicly available materials. All claims regarding the identity of voices in the provided audio are based on my own research and belief. This post should be viewed as investigative commentary and not as an absolute statement of fact.
The community note flags the original posting as false, stating, “That’s not Erika Kirk recruiting a young girl. It’s a controlled taped phone call circa 2005 to Haley Robson (a known Epstein recruiter) from Palm Beach PD, the child on the line (known as SG) was attempting to get Robson to incriminate herself.”
As a threshold matter, I commend these companies for the use of community notes. Many of us in the free speech community have long argued that defamation and public corrections can counter false claims and disinformation without the use of the prior censorship system under the Biden Administration.
It is unclear who is responsible for this posting. If you clicked on the link to the Project Constitution, you ended up on a page showing a pig in a police uniform.
I could find no information on who is responsible for the site or the postings. (The site has also linked bizarre conspiracy theories that Kirk is transsexual). The site, however, has also posted pictures of an ailing father and seeks donations.
When I started writing this column, the site was still up. Now you find this announcement:
However, there is still an X site featuring a picture of Charlie Kirk with a pitch for “tips”:
X reports that the verified account was created in 2022.
After various sites disproved the allegations, the creator (again without identifying himself or herself) issued an apology:
“CORRECTION: I would like to issue a correction regarding my previous post where I claimed the audio featured Erika Kirk. Upon further verification, the individual in the recording is actually Haley Robson, as detailed in the Palm Beach Police Department’s probable cause affidavit related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Here you can find the documents tht [sic] PROVE this: dn790006.ca.archive.org/0/items/Jeffre I apologize for the misinformation and any confusion this may have caused. Accuracy is important, and I am committed to upholding it in future posts. Thank you for your understanding.”
The claim that “Accuracy is important, and I am committed to upholding it in future posts” belies the fact that it is entirely unknown who the “I” is.
Making matters more difficult is the fact that there are other sites called Project Constitution that have no connection to the site attacking Kirk. The difficulty tracking the site or its creators shows the practical challenges in bringing lawsuits. It is possible for sites to spring up and then disappear like hit-and-run defamation cases.
Past courts have allowed litigants to discover the financial and identifying information from carriers or service providers in civil lawsuits.
If a site identifies its content generators, the legal system can address any defamatory content. However, absent such public information, the sites can offer public figures little recourse.
The controversy shows the dilemma for public figures like Kirk.
Kirk’s Case
While the correction can protect publishers under retraction statutes from some damages, there is a credible basis for possible defamation or false light claims. The original disclaimer’s language itself is in sharp contrast to the gotcha claims above it. Moreover, it contains some ambiguity in still claiming that this is the result of investigative journalism. The later apology seeks to resolve that ambiguity.
On the original posting, courts have routinely rejected perfunctory claims of “in my opinion” or disclaimers when the thrust of the publication is clearly factual. For example, in Wilkow v. Forbes, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a “statement of fact is not shielded from an action for defamation by being prefaced with the words ‘in my opinion,’ but if it is plain that the speaker is expressing a subjective view, an interpretation, a theory, conjecture, or surmise, rather than claiming to be in possession of objectively verifiable facts, the statement is not actionable.”
Kirk would have to shoulder the higher “actual malice” standard for public figures established by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, she must show that these sites had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement or showed reckless disregard for the truth. At a minimum, the latter standard would appear to be satisfied in this case. There is no evidence that the site took steps to confirm that this voice had previously been identified as Kirk’s, let alone to establish that “The voice is undeniably Erika Kirk’s.”
As for false light, a person can sue when a publication or image implies something that is both highly offensive and untrue. Where defamation deals with false statements, false light deals with false implications.
The standard California jury instruction asks the jury if “the false light created by the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s position” and whether “there is clear and convincing evidence that [the defendant] knew the disclosure would create a false impression … or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.”
There is no reason for Erica Kirk to have to tolerate despicable attacks by sites looking for clickbait windfalls. Moreover, it is important for social media companies to require authenticated individuals to be responsible for such postings. Project Constitution can always argue “truth” as a defense, but it should be called to defend this outrageous posting.
Is it time to Change the Public Figure Doctrine?
The Kirk controversy also raises a long-standing question of why public figures should be subject to the higher standard for defamation. I have previously written about the need, in my view, for the Supreme Court to reconsider its prior opinions treating public figures like public officials.
Justice William Brennan wrote an eloquent and profound decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, holding public officials to the higher standard of actual malice.
News outlets were being targeted at the time by anti-segregation figures in lawsuits to deter them from covering the civil rights marches. The court correctly saw civil liability as creating a chilling effect on the free press either by draining the publications of funds or inducing a type of self-censorship. Through this higher standard for proof of defamation, Brennan sought to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system.
The court believed that public officials have ample means to rebut false statements, but that it’s essential for democracy for voters and reporters to be able to challenge government officials. Later, the Court then extended that actual malice standard to public figures, arguing that they (like public officials) hold powerful positions in our society and choose their lives of high visibility.
Two justices have expressed an interest in revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice Clarence Thomas has been a long critic of the standard as unsupported in either the text or the history of the Constitution. Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch objected to the denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson, in which author Guy Lawson published a book detailing the “true story” of three Miami youngsters who allegedly became international arms dealers.
For over three decades, I have struggled in class to offer the same compelling rationale for applying the standard to anyone who is considered a public figure. It takes very little to qualify as a public figure, or a “limited-purpose public figure.” However, why should private success alone expose someone like the Kardashians to a higher burden of proof for defamation?
Writing about hot-dog-eating champion Michelle Lesco does not protect core democratic principles or even support core journalistic principles. To succeed, a Kardashian would still have to prove that a statement was false and unreasonable to print. Moreover, publications are protected in most states by retraction statutes limiting or blocking damages for corrected stories. Finally, opinion is already protected from defamation actions.
Kirk is a great example of the unfairness of the doctrine. Simply because she has chosen to take up the cause of her slain husband should not mean that she should be required to shoulder a higher burden than other citizens in defending her reputation. The doctrine fosters the view that celebrities are fair game for attacks and that they are not like other people in the protection of their reputations.
It is not clear that Kirk will sue any of the sites spreading this false story, but such a case could offer important legal and practical benefits in the area of defamation law.
We live in a click bait world. Often times real story has nothing to do with the headlines.
I read an article today that said that Iran allowed 89 ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
Like Iran has anything to say about it. Then you get down to near the last paragraph and the story reveals that only one fifth of the ships were Iranian ships. What it really proves is that America is not fighting a war against the Iranian people but rather against its leadership. First the world is being cut off from Iranian oil and then it isn’t. We should never forget that the left cheered when President Trump and Charlie Kirk were shot. I send this message to all the Democrats who will walk into a church on Sunday.
“. . . Iran *allowed* 89 ships . . .” (emphasis added)
That’s humorous.
Next headlines:
Iran allows U.S. navy to sink its ships.
Iran allows U.S. and Israeli military to destroy its air force.
Iran allows U.S. and Israel to wipe out three layers of its (tyrannical) leadership.
It also means the U.S. is not in control of the story or the strait.
I guess the government that lost their leadership, THREE LAYERS, lost their navy, lost their air force, lost their missiles, lost their air defenses, had their strategic oil island destroyed and is having their proletariat guards killed daily is the government in charge???
It’s like saying Hitler was in charge during the Battle of the Bulge as the Americans were closing in on Germany, the Russians were aiming for Berlin itself, the Wehrmacht was all but destroyed, the Luftwaffe was rendered useless and Berlin was starting to starve. X, George, would have been saying “we have no direction”, ” we will lose soon” etc etc.
Look, Hullbobby, you’re clearly stuck in a 1940s ‘battleship’ mindset. Iran doesn’t need a traditional navy to turn the Strait of Hormuz into a graveyard; they have asymmetric math on their side.
They haven’t lost their missile stockpile—that’s the whole point. They have enough cheap drones and saturation missiles to make our ‘impenetrable’ defense systems look like a sieve. We’re already cannibalizing THAAD batteries from South Korea just to keep the lights on in the Gulf.
It’s almost impressive how you missed the irony: Trump spent years insulting NATO, and now he’s essentially ‘sliding into their DMs’ begging for help because his ‘Maximum Pressure’ strategy left us in a strategic crater. Relying on allies you spent a year trashing isn’t ‘winning’—it’s a desperate pivot to cover a massive deficit in military resources and common sense.
It’s almost impressive how you copied from AI and WIki and Google and pretend it’s your own opinion. Do you really think that anyone thinks you are an expert in munitions? Like all the other careers, professions, and expertise that you have adopted?
Yes,X, I am looking forward to a totalitarian government and the taking of free will and logic from every single individual and relying upon magic and superstition. Onward!
WTF does that have to do with defamation you idiot?
Markeayne’ a lahr!!!
With the increasing use of AI and as AI becomes more difficult to distinguish from reality, it may make sense to revisit Sullivan to reflect new realities.
(OT)
Yet another major company is fleeing the People’s State of California.
The Yamaha Motor Corporation is relocating its corporate headquarters to Georgia. Why? To protect itself from California’s suffocating regulations and confiscatory taxes.
As with other countless examples: Wealth flees statism.
Sam, wrong. They are moving because of Trump’s tariffs and a multi year plan to centralize their administration to be closer to their manufacturing hubs. They cited ¥54.3 billion ($354.7 million) in U.S. tariffs in early 2026—a sharp increase from 2025—driven by new 10–25% import duties on components like outboard motors. These federal trade policies contributed to a 30.4% drop in FY2025 operating profit, driving the relocation of corporate functions to Georgia to improve efficiency.
California regulations had nothing to do with it.
“They are moving because of Trump’s tariffs . . .”
Per usual, you’re just making stuff up. And you have a challenging relationship with geography. Georgia is in the U.S., and companies there are subjected to the same tariffs.
Sam, nope.
https://tradeonlytoday.com/industry-news/yamaha-notes-tariffs-tax-liabilities-in-fy2025-results/
Per usual, you didn’t read your own source.
It says nothing about Yamaha avoiding tariffs by moving to Georgia. But it does say a lot about Yamaha’s *California* tax liability.
Rather than trying to impress others with your links and AI pastes, try some original thinking. Baby steps.
Sam, nice try. But no cigar.
“The company cited tariffs among the reasons for the declines, noting that it has already paid JPY$54.3 billion ($354.7 million) in tariffs in 2026 compared with JPY$17.1 billion ($111.6 million) for all of 2025.”
That’s a big chunk of change compared to taxes.
“Nice try but no cigar.”
How original.
I’m flattered that you have adopted and used the assessment that I have applied to you, on multiple occasions.
such a sad sack you are.
“The company cited tariffs among the reasons for the *declines* . . .” (emphasis added)
But not as the reason Yamaha is moving to Georgia.
Follow the point of the thread, first. Then comment.
X yourre full of poop.
X, George, that’s like saying they are moving to GA to avoid federal taxes. Wow, it must get tiring to have a need to argue every point no matter how moronic.
Yes Hullbobby, Trump imposed taxes.
Sam,
Not just companies fleeing the failed state of CA, see here: California says it lost $2 billion in state income taxes from earners leaving
“California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office says the state lost approximately $2.3 billion in state personal income taxes due to outmigration in the 2022-2023 fiscal year.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/california-says-it-lost-2-billion-state-income-taxes-earners-leaving
Billionaires are looking to leave too: California wealth tax proposal hemorrhages $1T as billionaires flee
“Silicon Valley investor warns middle class will ‘foot the bill’ as ultra-wealthy residents leave state”
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-billionaire-tax-proposal-hemorrhages-1-trillion-billionaires-flee
Wrong linky, Outmigration cost California $24B in departed incomes as poorer people move in
“304 companies have left California since January 2019, according to the California Policy Center’s California Book of Exoduses, which tracks corporate exits from California.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/outmigration-cost-california-24b-departed-incomes-poorer-people-move
You SF.
Upstate, yes, California has experienced net migration losses, the state maintains a $4.3 trillion economy, ranking as the world’s fourth-largest as of 2026. Despite reported corporate moves, state revenues grew by 9.1% in the 2024-25 fiscal year, suggesting that migration has a minimal, non-systemic impact on the overall economic base. It wasn’t as big a hit as you would like it to be. California’s economy is literally bigger than most countries.
Upstate, your numbers line up with what I’ve seen out here. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has already documented billions in foregone income tax revenue tied to higher‑earning Californians moving out, and that trend is a drag on long‑term PIT growth. Now we’re also talking about layering very high transfer taxes on real estate sales in some jurisdictions, where a million‑dollar sale can easily throw off a mid‑five‑figure check to government on the gross price, not the gain. At some point the combination of income‑tax dependence and transaction‑tax friction stops being progressive policy and starts being a slow‑motion liquidation of the state’s own tax base.
Got factual sources lurker?
OLLY
Completely pointless comment based on ignorance of the facts on two separate levels
The only reason California is considering the so called “mansion taxes” is because the ultra-wealthy have always been able to completely escape real property transfer taxes (RPTT).
Firstly, you seem to think that real property transfer taxes (RPTT) are normally based on the capital gain, and that California is an exception by basing the tax on the gross price. California is an exception, but in the exact opposite way that you are trying to portray.
In virtually every US jurisdiction RPTT is based on the gross transaction price, that is the agreed price between the buyer and seller, regardless of the seller’s capital gain or encumbrances. Even if the seller sells at a loss he is still on the hook for tax on the transaction price.
However California is an EXCEPTION. In California, RPTT is calculated on the net price paid to the seller, that is, the gross transaction price less any encumbrances such as mortgages and liens. So if a property is mortgaged for the full sale price then no RPTT is due.
Secondly, you don’t understand that the ultra-wealthy have always been able to escape this tax.
If a very high priced mansion is mortgaged to the hilt, then there is very little RPTT payable when sold.
So what do the multibillionaires in California do?
When they buy a multimillion dollar property they “borrow” the full price from their own corporations. In other words they have a mortgage for the full price of the property, but they “owe” the mortgage to themselves. They have armies of accountants who make sure that all their property is fully encumbered at all times, so when they sell they owe NO property transfer tax. The same armies of accountants can structure sales to virtually eliminate capital gains taxes.
So, you fall flat on your face when you try to characterize California’s “mansion taxes” as confiscatory and the reason that wealthy people leave the state. The taxes are simply an attempt to force the ultra-wealthy to at least pay some sort of tax that all the “little people” are unable to avoid, such as RPTT and capital gains.
The more important point (and I will concede that my numbers were off) is that adding yet another layer of taxes on property owners in California is not going to solve the fiscal problems this state faces. It will still motivate people to leave rather than stay, do little to attract new investment or residents, and it does nothing to discipline the spending habits that created the structural problem in the first place.
OLLY
Actually, the more important point, as you put it, is that the pseudointellectual, geriatric, MAGA know-it-alls on this site really know absolutely nothing at all, and their opinions are based on nothing more than wishful thinking, mixed in with entirely fact free MAGA propaganda.
The fact that you have a strong opinion on California’s mansion taxes in the complete absence of any accurate facts or knowledge of the tax or its purpose, simply demonstrates this point.
😂 You are engaging some facts, just not the ones I actually raised. Resorting to age slurs and “MAGA know‑it‑all” on top of that still says more about the weakness of your rhetorical position than about anyone else’s knowledge.
I’ve lived in California since 1979 and am quite familiar with this state’s long record of fiscal‑management failures. I’m not so narrow‑minded as to fixate on one tax proposal I haven’t fully vetted and conclude that, because I misstated one detail, I must therefore be wrong about everything this state has done to its tax base. And given that track record, the odds that my instincts about yet another “mansion” levy were directionally correct were pretty high, especially in light of their latest brainwave to explore a per‑mile “road usage” fee on top of the existing gas tax.
OLLY
You didn’t simply misstate one detail. You displayed a fundamental lack of knowledge about how RPTT works ANYWHERE, let alone in California.
Until today you had no understanding in general of how RPTT taxes work anywhere in the US.
The fact that you live in California and still do not understand how California RPTT works simply reinforces the view that your opinions on any other tax matters are suspect.
We can see that in your latest gaffe that California is considering a road use tax ON TOP OF the gas tax.
This is absolutely false.
The proposed road use tax is a REPLACEMENT of the gas tax. The reason is perfectly obvious to any well informed observer. There has been a dramatic increase in electric vehicles ESPECIALLY in California, where 25% of new vehicle registrations are fully electric. This means that those vehicles have the use of the roads without contributing to their construction or maintenance. The replacement of the gas tax with a road use tax is a perfectly rational response to ensure that every road user pays their fair share. There is debate about how to implement and phase in the road use tax, but the goal is to REPLACE the gas tax.
I don’t even live in California and I am more knowledgeable about California taxes than you are, and you live there.
This series of “misstatements” by you simply proves my original assertion that the people here on this blog, in general, are spouting off with strong opinions about matters of which they have no knowledge or fundamental understanding.
You repeatedly display a fundamental lack of knowledge about matters on which you have strong opinions. This leads to the obvious and perfectly reasonable assumption that all your opinions are suspect based on your fundamentally poor general knowledge, and not just on these tax matters, but on all political matters.
OLLY
In fact, not only do you have no understanding of how real property transfer taxes work in California, you do not even have a basic general knowledge of how they work ANYWHERE.
You erroneously believed that in general RPTT is based on the capital gain of the property.
That is not the case, and has never been the case anywhere, except in Vermont where they have an ADDITIONAL tax that they call the land gains tax payable on the capital gain of properties held less than 6 years. This tax is on top of the regular RTTP, and is designed to discourage property flippers.
Upstate, you’re using pandemic era stats? California has experienced pandemic-era outmigration, the reported $2 billion in foregone revenue represents only 1.6% of total Personal Income Tax (PIT) collections, with the LAO noting that broader revenue declines were primarily driven by stock market volatility rather than migration. Furthermore, data indicates a strong rebound in high-income migration, with the number of high-income adults leaving the state falling by 28% in 2024, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
Clearly your eagerness to show California in a bad light out of jealousy is telling.
X, George, care to explain why CA, NY, IL, MA and NJ are losing congressional seats while FL, TX, NC, TN are gaining seats? You will claim it is the weather except for CA….
And I forgot the U-Haul stats, Movers relocated to these states the most in 2025, U-Haul report suggests
https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/5674558-movers-relocated-to-these-states-the-most-in-2025-u-haul-report-suggests/
Those who can afford to flee are doing so, and not just billionaires but middle class as they see their dollars go further in other lower cost, lower taxes, lower COL overall states than CA.
It is the peak of partisan gymnastics for Turley to lobby for overturning NYT v. Sullivan while staying silent as the Trump administration openly threatens to revoke broadcast licenses for “hoaxes”. If we actually followed his logic—lowering the defamation bar to punish “fake news”—Fox News would have been stripped of its license years ago after its $787 million settlement for actual, proven defamation.
His double standards are glaring. Turley is practically seems to want for this anonymous defamer to be a “leftist” just to validate his narrative, a total 180 from when he viciously attacked the Ukraine whistleblower, calling the use of an anonymous source a “threat to the rule of law” and a “departure from transparency”.
Even more embarrassing, Turley has spent decades defending the “actual malice” standard as the “bedrock of American press freedom.” Abandoning that now just because he’s annoyed that this anonymous site could have been created by a “Leftist” isn’t a legal evolution; it’s a partisan shell game. If he actually cared about the First Amendment, he’d be apoplectic over today’s March 18th FCC “War Misinformation” hearing, where the government is actively wanting to police newsrooms and define their narratives and using the threat of license revocations as an ‘incentive’ to comply. Instead, he chooses to ignore real state-sponsored attempts at censorship while performing for his audience.
But MUH! Trump! Wawawawawa
The only thing that’s embarrassing is your lame attempt to shoe-horn in a double-standard smear of JT.
Pro tip: Sullivan deals with *defamation*. The rest of your scattershot comment deals with everything and nothing.
Platforms like X and You Tube make every person their own New York Times if they choose. The line between the journalism of the Sullivan decision and advocacy journalism is blurred. So is it’s “breathing room”. We protect the Indispensable Right with demand for bright lines like public official and public figure, to subordinate the right of the one to redress for the defamation tort, to the rights of the many to speak. Is public figure in it’s present form a good part of the bright line? Is it too fuzzy? Does it meet out disparate treatment to like situated individuals? We control legislation at odds with the equal protection concepts of the 5th and 14th Amendments. We ought not lose sight of it in building case law.
“Is public figure in it’s present form a good part of the bright line? Is it too fuzzy? ”
How about this: If an individual currently makes more than an annual salary of $x that is directly funded by taxpayer dollars, or has made in excess of a lifetime total of $y from the same kind of sources, that individual permanently forfeits any claim to seek compensation or other discipline for defamation by anyone who has not met that same standard. I have no dog in a fight over whether movie stars or other notorious, non-governmental figures should be entitled to claim defamation in spite of the fact that they are figures in the public eye; I have little sympathy for them or for the media clowns who would toady them up or defame them, whichever might produce higher compensation. I would very much like to see the doctrine of qualified immunity for public officials entirely rescinded, and then enjoy watching the current scurry by would be parasites for such positions suddenly cease. My proposal wrt defamation would not be nearly as satisfactory, but I would view it as a small step in the right direction.
Scurriless lies repeated by the unwitting repeater or wishful-thinking political sympathizer are one thing.
Scurriless lies knowlingly fabricated in order to deceive for political or economic advantage are quite another.
They are not “opinions”. They are deliberate attempts to dupe the public for some intended effect on public opinion.
In my mind, they are only protected by the 1st Amendment in the shallowest way — from govt. prosecution. That leaves civil lawsuit as a legal countermeasure. To wit, most defamations are not primarily done to harm the person defamed, but in service of some larger intent to deceive the public.
It makes little sense to let political whoppers go unchallenged legally. Under such permissiveness (abandonment of moral clarity), how is a self-governing people to make wise, well-informed policy decisions?
“Scurriless lies repeated by the unwitting repeater or wishful-thinking political sympathizer are one thing.
Scurriless lies knowlingly fabricated in order to deceive for political or economic advantage are quite another.”
That goes to motive. Motive can be difficult to prove under most circumstances, can it not? Is there something about defamation that would make that easier? Seems to me that the converse might be true. It also appears that in the example cited by Turley, the perpetrator adequately covered his or her derriere with caveats and retractions even if Mrs. Kirk was entitled to pursue a defamation claim. Yet, as Turley notes, damage has likely already been done. How would your analysis change any of that?
I would establish Fast Public Frauds Courts, in which ordinary citizens could sue purveyors of any Public Fraud. This would cover AI deep fakes, fake news stories, and any form of deceptive or inauthentic use of the public square (not already covered by other law). Defamation cases would be recast as Public Frauds cases.
Those courts would offer Rapid Due Diligence, meaning almost immediate subpoenas and compelled depositions, the thrust of which would be to quickly expose the originator(s) of the Fraud. You need the legal power of Discovery to crack the wall of secrecy behind which the skilled infowarrior operates. In addition, those who didn’t originate the fraud, but who willingly disseminate it knowing of its falsehood are also the targets of the lawsuit.
Juries decide the truth, and who acted in bad faith. Monetary damages are assessed as a deterrent to other infowarriors.
The mere existence of these fast lawsuits will deter almost all of the conniving deceit out there.
It has to be a fast-response system that keeps pace with the modern infowarfare shop. Legal delay is tactically denied the perpetrators. The threat of being exposed as inauthentic in realtime will keep public actors on the straight and narrow, without crimping the authentic expression of divergent thinking.
That’s the sweet spot of “free speech” — a diverse panoply of thought expressed within the bounds of civility, honesty and goodwill. A wide vista of thought, which can be trusted as authentic.
Something that would make that easier you’ve asked, anon? Sure, truth. There is a truth principle and it relies upon objective reality. There’s not a middle ground. It’s either true or untrue. Clearly the Erika report is untrue and has her in a false light. That’s harm. All you need to know. Defamation for whatever reason claims kings and paupers like death equally.
I get why a civics teacher, politician, journalist, or pundit might favor “breathing space” for criticism of public figures. But Justice Brennan was none of those, he was a judge tasked with interpreting the Constitution. Where in the Constitution do you get such a notion that public officials have lesser reputational rights than others solely because third parties (the media) are likely to broadcast their rebuttals? It simply isn’t there. That’s the problem with judge-made rules that have no basis in the text or history of the Constitution: they’re cooked up as a policial exercise, which may be acceptable in other forums but not in a court of law.
“Where in the Constitution do you get such a notion that public officials have lesser reputational rights than others solely because third parties (the media) are likely to broadcast their rebuttals?”
Where in the Constitution do you find any diminution of the First Amendment free speech protections based on whether or not someone suffers reputational harm as a result? Where in that document do you find any guarantee whatsoever of reputational rights for anyone? That “simply isn’t there”.
Every single time Turls claims to be a member of ‘the free speech community know a) that at best he’s entirely one-sided on the issue (he’s for free speech in a partisan way…he shills for R’s), and b) he actively has this blog censored.
Turls is a mondo free speech hypocrite.
Hey, does anyone read even one word after seeing “Turls”?
No. As soon as I see “Turls” or “MAGA” I stop reading. Why waste time on horse’s a– comments by low-IQ leftist trolls?
Oh stop. You love reading my posts because, you, as a dedicated bleach drinkers, always learn from them.
Obviously you did you very stupid ignorant fool.
Thanks for reading, Slobby.
HullBobby,
Meh, just a sure sign of bitter, hate and rage filled EB full of envy of the good professor’s success.
But Turley is a cautionary tale of selling out to slinging Russian disinformation. He completely self destructed his standing in the legal community by adopting Roy cohn tactics and is now regarded as being “Mike Lindell with tenure”. Sad tale.
Not me. Immediately shows an empty soul.
“[W]hy should private success alone expose someone like the Kardashians to a higher burden of proof for defamation?” (JT)
Damn good question.
The bedrock of Western jurisprudence is that a law has a *single*, clear definition that applies equally to all. You are not supposed to get less (or more) legal protection because of your social status.
Sullivan is double-standard law and should be overturned.
The law still talks about the “reasonable reader” as if that person is easy to identify. In 2026 we are surrounded by people who are competent in ordinary life yet will believe almost anything if it flatters their politics or identity, which makes the gap between the legal fiction and cultural reality wider by the day.
Defamation law cannot and should not redefine “reasonable” to mean “whatever a highly online partisan is prepared to swallow,” so courts cling to an objective standard while our culture rewards being unreasonable.
If we are going to keep that standard, then the ask has to be on us: schools, platforms, and citizens themselves need to start treating basic media literacy and fact‑checking as civic duties, not optional hobbies, so that the “reasonable reader” is something more than a line in a jury instruction.
OLLY,
Well said.
Finding a “reasonable reader” these days is not easy. As citizens, we have become a nation whom is more inclined to believe something beyond “reasonable,” if it agrees with their particular view point. As I mention below, I have a friend who is was so enraged about the Pertti shooting, she got duped by a obviously AI fake picture. She is educated and I consider to be intelligent. Yet, she was none to happy with ME when I pointed out it was a fake.
As AI generated content becomes not only better but more accessible by the average joe, I fear people will get more duped not only by the AI generated content but by their own bias to believe and willingly get duped.
And, we have become a nation who would rather believe the lie, then bother to fact-check for the truth.
Where in Turley’s opinion does he raise the issue “AI content”?
As a nation … please, just because you’re stupid does mean everyone else is. Just you.
WTF is AI generated content – give us a concrete example. For a simpleton like you its a new buzz word to toss about. You are not coherent in such topics.
Stick to pig farming.
WTF is AI generated content
Have you been living under a rock the last 3 years?
If you had any reading comprehension, jellyfish, you would know and understand I was addressing OLLY and not the good professor.
https://seedance.io/
https://www.tillynorwood.com/
Not only are my hogs smarter than you, they have a spine and are more useful.
Upstate, you just put your finger on the part of this that matters most. We are not running out of intelligence; we are running out of people who are willing to let facts slow their outrage down, and AI is only making that easier to see. When smart, educated adults are getting taken in by obvious fakes because the image matches the anger they already feel, the problem is not just the technology, it is the citizen. When a reader, viewer, or listener chases the ego‑boost of having their preferred narrative confirmed instead of the humbler work of learning, that is the clearest sign that ideology has already weakened their capacity for self‑government. At some point we have to decide that “I wanted it to be true” is not good enough, and that basic fact‑checking is part of the job description of being a grown‑up in a free country, not an optional extra for the nerds.
OLLY,
I think that is what I find most concerning. This is not an instance of pre-internet days, the little old lady in the grocery check out line, buying the Daily Globe (precursor to CNN and MS NOW) with the headline, “Bat Boy is Real!” but my friend is a highly educated, successful and I consider intelligent woman. Your getting to the root of the cause came to mind and I tried to get her to ask the simple question of why did Pertti act as he did? She said she did not care and continued on down the ICE path even after I pointed out the picture was fake.
Yes, it does appear ideology is weakening the citizens.
Upstate, I have to admit, I find it genuinely creepy. With some lifelong friends I can talk about work, family, and everything else in a perfectly normal way, but the minute politics or government comes up it’s like an alien has taken the controls. Same face, same voice, but something else is doing the talking. That is what it looks like, at ground level, when an ideology takes over the part of a person that is supposed to belong to their own judgment.
OLLY,
To me, to see them go from logical, intelligent people to hyper-emotional based, for lack of better term, Karen, is what I find disturbing. They do not question the narrative they are being fed.
Upstate, same here. Watching that switch flip in otherwise intelligent people is what pushed me into trying to understand the psychology behind all this. Bezmenov and then Desmet gave me a language for what we’re seeing, and from there the question became: who and what are doing the forming that turns reasonable adults into hyper‑emotional “Karens” who never question the narrative. Once you start following that trail, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that citizen formation has been captured by forces that don’t actually want a self‑governing people.
Studies, experiments in brainwashing have been done and once complete it’s irreversible. People freely choose the lie. Brainwashing is called group-think now. It begins in preschool. BB was punished and no longer adheres to the harm principle.
This was before AI at the Washington Post and the stooges Woodward and Bernstein with the additional dramatic flare of Deep Throat. The reason for the porn reference is unkn. It’s not new.
Agree. The question is what legal mechanism is the right one to counter deceitful political infowarfare?
Government prosecution would be the wrong choice — it gives government the power to define fact vs. fiction, a power that is much safer widely distributed in the hands of The People than concentrated in the current government.
What about civil lawsuit? We accept its use to counter falsehoods that defame a person or entity. Why not use it more broadly to confront falsehoods waged for political power that don’t happen to defame anyone?
At least then, the decision of fact vs. falsehood would be made by a Jury of 12 average Americans. The Founders gave us this brilliant system for deciding criminality based on factual evidence presented in an adversarial proceeding — and in civil matters, who committed harm and to what extent?
Government cannot block a citizen or group from filing lawsuit. That is the check on government power needed to make sure The People retain essential powers over the public square, and maintenance of standards of public speech.
In the Madisonian notion of “the consent of the governed”, there is no quarter for duping the public on the way to obtaining that consent. Madison was referring to “informed consent”, the obvious implication being that consent obtained via deliberate deceit nullifies any consent — it is an affront to and attack on the founding principle.
Therefore, it is common sense that the public have the power to demand authenticity in the public square….with legal teeth.
Lets preface this comment stating that Olly the Lurker (his new mime) is not a lawyer.
His silly sophomoric intro: “the law still talks about”. Law in defamation cases is fixed has been since 1964, Sullivan v NYT is preeminent; there is no other law, no other standard.
That said, his comment is devoid of any insight that could possibly be relevant as a response to Turley’s experienced legal observations.
Just a heap of words mashed together to get simpletons here the impression he knows what he’s talking. He does not. He’s a spews flim flam. Nothing more.
Anon – I enjoy Olly’s comments. He usually has insights I benefit from. In this case, for example, I had never thought about how the legal fiction of “reasonable reader” is eroding in moder society, and how that might affect legal doctrine in the defamation arena.
OldManFromKS,
As do I. And I learn things from lawyers such as yourself, JJC, Daniel, Lin, Wiseoldlawyer and others.
The jellyfish on the other hand, never adds anything useful. Generally just childish insults and tries and fails to paint it’s self as some kind of intellectual while attempting to tear others down.
Upstate – exactly.
Upstate, I’m with you on the value added by people who are actually trying to think things through. The lawyers you mention and folks like Oldman are doing the slow, unglamorous work of testing ideas against law and reality, which is exactly what this kind of thread needs. The opposite instinct is the jellyfish one you describe: float in, sting a few people with drive‑by insults, and call it a contribution. My view is that every commenter on a forum like this has the same basic choice as every reader in a defamation case: either you raise the level of seriousness in the room, or you help prove that the “reasonable reader” is an endangered species.
Upstate, I am honored to be mentioned in the same sentence as those in your list but Olly and Milhouse* deserve the honor too, among those “others” you mention. Milhouse gets an asterisk* however, because his obvious intelligence and vast knowledge is tempered by his arrogance.
Wiseoldlawyer,
The honor is mine. What I really appreciate is those listed and OLLY of course and others who will make comments in such a manner that us non-lawyers can understand.
You two 😉 that’s kind of you to say, especially since I’m not a lawyer or even a college grad. I came to this blog for exactly that reason, to learn from people who know the law and can connect it to the principles underneath it. If anything I’m just trying to translate what I’ve picked up into terms that ordinary citizens like me can use.
Oldman, I appreciate that. I’ve tried to look at this doctrine from a systems perspective and consider all the stakeholders in the act of communication. The courts quite properly focus on the speaker, but the primary actor in all of this is still the reader, viewer, or listener; without them there is no reputational harm and no case or controversy. So I keep asking what their responsibility is in the process. If we are going to treat citizens as having agency, then they also have a duty to develop and exercise the capacity to test what they consume against the truth, instead of taking every pleasing narrative at face value.
Olly, that’s an interesting point, as to how the defamation tort differs from other torts by involving a third party’s perception. BTW was your book published in 1994?
Oldman, interesting you mention 1994. That was about when I was just getting my feet under me in systems thinking, learning to see problems in terms of actors, incentives, and feedback loops instead of just personalities. That way of looking at the world did not really mature for me in the civic arena until around the 2008 election, and by about 2014 I finally peeled off the Republican jersey and registered as an Independent. For the last 15 years I’ve been trying to trace our republican troubles back to their root cause, and that work keeps landing me on the same point: the formation of the citizen is the leverage point. If we don’t get that piece right, no amount of doctrinal tweaking will save the system, and for the record that is exactly what pushed me to publish my book in 2025 as an effort to spell out what that formation ought to look like.
Found it, thanks.
Citizen capacity is a phrase utilized in a school of thought by whom I can’t recall. I replace capacity with ability – makes it easier for me. A citizen’s ability to understand etc. Hope that’s OK with Mr. Oliver.
The ad in NY Times was fraud but dramatic. Snake oil can be advertised and water is the universal solvent. Buy some. Truth in advertisement…9-0 huh.
Anon, Thank you for the consideration. I didn’t actually pick the term up from a particular school of thought, even though it sounds like I probably should have. It came together over time as I tried to understand why systems rise or fall depending on the people operating within them. If I had to describe the process, it was more a slow synthesis than a eureka moment, like assembling a puzzle. Different pieces from history, philosophy, and real‑world observation began to form a coherent picture only when I started viewing them together.
“Citizen capacity” was simply the best way I could find to name that overall level. If “ability” lands better, I think that is completely fair; I tend to use “capacity” because it feels broader, more about the level a person is formed to operate at over time, not just what he or she can pull off in a single moment.
Over time, that idea condensed into a line that has helped me keep it grounded: the ceiling of government competence is set by the floor of citizen capacity. Still a work in progress, but that is the path that led me there.
Anonymous, just because you don’t understand OLLY’s educated responses, don’t blame OLLY, Blame those who were supposed to teach you, but failed.
I was helping others, Meyer. My intentions are true. Further reading re citizen capacity and that school of thought can be helpful. ☺. I tend to think capacity references a beaker or electrical circuit, fuel tanks etc.
Anon, thank you, and I did take your earlier comment in the spirit it was offered. When I use “citizen capacity,” I am close to how Britannica talks about “civic capacity”: a citizen’s ability and aptitude to participate in political decision‑making, including the skills to discern facts, make sound judgments, and be willing to act for the common good. For my purposes, that is essentially the level of formation a person has for self‑government over time, which is why “capacity” has ended up working better for me than a thinner word like “ability.”
Olly, The “reasonable reader” standard isn’t a sociological survey of our national reading comprehension; it’s a vital constitutional safeguard designed to prevent the government from becoming the “Arbiter of Truth.” If we redefined “reasonable” to accommodate the most biased or literarily illiterate partisans, political commentary would become legally impossible—any satire or nuance could be sued into oblivion by someone who simply didn’t understand it.
By arguing that the law needs to “fix” this cultural reality, you are providing a legal opening for the state-sponsored censorship currently unfolding. Look at FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s March 2026 actions: he is bypassing the “reasonable reader” entirely by threatening to revoke licenses for what he unilaterally labels “hoaxes” and “news distortions” regarding the Iran war.
He is treating a public with documented literacy challenges and poor reading comprehension as subjects who must be “protected” from unauthorized facts rather than citizens capable of discernment.
Ironically Fox News won a case on exactly this point in McDougal vs Fox News network LLC.
Fox News used this standard to win in court, the FCC is currently attempting to bypass it by threatening to revoke licenses for “hoaxes” and “fake news.”
Turley should be all over this but because it’s Trump he’s refraining from it either by choice or maybe contract non-disparagment obligations.
X, the “reasonable reader” standard is a useful legal fiction, but it assumes a kind of citizen we are no longer reliably producing. My concern is not to change that doctrine but to look at the culture underneath it. When large numbers of people actively seek ego‑gratification from their preferred narratives instead of the humbler work of learning, they make themselves easier to manipulate and harder to self‑govern. My point is that we ought to take that formation problem seriously, because no legal standard can save a public that prefers validation to truth.
Olly, what do you think about the concept of citizenship formation as a civil right, and what that may imply legally – such as either preventing the state from interfering with it, or imposing certain affirmative obligations on the state in the area of public education?
Oldman, I like that frame a lot. I do see “citizenship formation” as belonging in the family of civil rights, but more on the side of protecting space than handing the state a blank check. At a minimum the state should not be allowed to obstruct parents, churches, or voluntary associations that are actually forming citizens, and it ought to treat serious civic education in public schools as part of its basic duty, not an expendable elective.
A recent piece putting Kelley, Arendt, and Desmet in conversation on how ordinary people slide into totalizing systems has only reinforced that for me; their shared conclusion is that the only real antidote is the slow work of forming citizens who can still think for themselves: https://www.malone.news/p/three-diagnoses-of-totalitarianism. My instinct is that we should press courts to recognize a real interest in civic formation, while building most of the positive work outside the machinery that is currently producing the problem.
One important note: Citizen formation isn’t some new academic fad I’m trying to bolt onto the system. It’s happening every hour of the day, anywhere two or more people are in relationship with each other. The real questions are: who is doing the forming, what kind of citizen are they producing, and in a constitutional republic, does that formation actually equip people with the capacity for self‑government. If we never ask those questions, we will keep waking up surprised that the citizens our institutions are producing don’t seem able to sustain the freedoms those same institutions depend on.
Olly, I agree with you on this point. I see a problem with trying to take the information seriously if there is a problem with the level of illiteracy and reading comprehension in this country. This blog has plenty of examples of what you are trying to point out.
X, I don’t actually think basic literacy or comprehension are the core problem here. Most of the people I’m talking about can read just fine. What worries me is how they’ve been formed to process information. When someone gets genuinely triggered by a simple statement like “only biological women can get pregnant,” that’s not a reading problem, it’s a sign that an ideology has trained them to treat certain plain facts as personal attacks. That formation pattern is what makes citizens so easy to steer and so hard to reason with.
It’s based in fear. Fear of being excluded and becomes maniacal. It’s tragic.
Anonymous, I think that is exactly right. Fear of exclusion gets trained into people until they experience dissent as a threat to belonging, which is how you end up with citizens who cannot risk crossing the prevailing narrative and who experience plain facts as attacks on identity rather than as things to be judged.
Kant captured a version of this dynamic in his essay What is Enlightenment, where he describes Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self‑incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self‑incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. Sapere aude! ‘Have courage to use your own understanding!’ is therefore the motto of enlightenment.
How about Trump v. BBC case.
https://courthousenews.com/bbc-fights-trumps-latest-defamation-claims/
I do not like the Public Figure escape that the Supreme Court has created. To use their own terms, it’s vague and seems to be quite non discriminating when it is applied. The public figure should have the same rights as anyone else. Just because you are a public figure does not mean that you are rich and can mount an expensive defense to some of these Willy Nilly and scandalous attacks. Just as I don’t believe the “rich and famous” and other public figures should get special privileges, I also don’t think they should have to deal with scandalous and libelous attacks any more than anyone else.
Equal before the law, right?
Maybe that would reduce the volume of the screaming that all sides engage in if they had more accountability for what they say. This should be a civil matter with no involvement by the government. This is not Germany, the UK or the European Union.
For what it worth: The rich are usually not the ones mounting a defense, rather they are more likely the ones initiating defamation suits. Source law.stackexchange.com.
SLAPP anyone?
Wealthy individuals are far more likely to initiate defamation lawsuits than poor individuals, primarily due to the high costs and risks involved in litigation.
Wealth enables access to legal resources: Defamation cases are expensive and complex, requiring skilled attorneys, expert witnesses, and extensive discovery. Most poor individuals cannot afford these costs, making it nearly impossible to pursue a claim without contingency-fee lawyers—many of whom avoid defamation cases due to low recovery potential.
Defamation is often a “rich person’s tort”: As noted by legal professionals, defamation claims are typically pursued by those with significant assets or reputations to protect. High-profile cases (e.g., Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard, Alex Jones vs. Sandy Hook families) involve wealthy or public figures, where damages can be substantial.
Wealthy plaintiffs can use lawsuits strategically: Some rich individuals file defamation suits not just to win damages, but to intimidate, silence critics, or burden opponents with legal fees. These are often classified as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation)—frivolous or vexatious suits used to drain the resources of the defendant.
Legal systems often favor the financially powerful: In civil litigation, the ability to pay for prolonged legal battles gives wealthier parties a significant advantage. Poor defendants may be forced to settle or drop their case simply due to mounting legal costs, even if they have a valid defense.
Counter-suits and legal harassment: Wealthy individuals can also use the legal system offensively—filing counterclaims, motions, or cost demands that overwhelm a less-resourced opponent, effectively deterring them from continuing legal action.
In short, while anyone can technically file a defamation suit, the financial and procedural barriers mean that rich people are far more likely to initiate such cases, and often use them as tools of power and leverage.
The scales of justice often simply weigh the amount of money each party has.
Kirk is using Charlie’s martyrdom as a weapon expecting his minions to overwhelm her critics with public attacks.
Anonymous, MS Kirk isn’t “using Charlie’s martyrdom as a weapon”, her enemies, people lie Candace Owens, are using her position as a way to garner clicks, fame and money. Why blame a woman who took over her dead husband’s platform for what lying bad people are saying about her? I don’t understand your perspective.
Now how in the entire world could you possibly know what Kirk thinks? You a psychic?
HullBobby,
Good point.
The Project Constitution web page that has now gone offline. I was wondering if it was to try to defame Ms. Kirk, click bait or to solicit funds for a allegedly sick father. Perhaps all three.
The sad part is there are people out there who will believe this kind of stuff.
I have a friend who got duped by that really bad AI picture of Pertti getting shot, the one with the one ICE agent missing his head. But people want to believe it so badly they will suspend their own intelligence. That same picture was presented on the floor by a Congress man as evidence of . . . something. When confronted about the missing ICE agents head and that it was a bad AI fake, the staff responded that the picture was slightly edited.
What a stupid irrelevant comment.
“The Project Constitution web page”
What was the “web site” domain? All that Turley provided were links to an X account, a vastly different kind of entity.
What does the UK, GY or EU have to do with Kirk? The issue is local. Not intl.
In fact those GY and UK have a long history pertaining to defamation law. Its just didn’t appear overnight. In GY’s case it goes back to 1871. In UK’s 1843. So the case for gov. intervention is historical not political.
You do realize that your second paragraph completely undermined the criticism you mad ein your first, do you not?
The “public person” invented by the 1960s Supreme Court is a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection-of-the-law. All citizens should enjoy the same deterrence against public defamation. Why that wasn’t obvious during the Sullivan v. NYT case is perplexing to this day.
Equally perplexing is why Prof. Turley takes falls into a dichotomization trap when it comes to inauthentic, deceitful infowarfare:
JT: “Many of us in the free speech community have long argued that defamation and public corrections can counter false claims and disinformation without the use of the prior censorship system under the Biden Administration.”
You mean to say there is no middle ground between public correction and govt. prosecution? What about civil lawsuit — the measure largely destroyed by our own Supreme Court in Sullivan?
Gratuitous “my opinion only” boilerplate language should not be seen as a cleansing of intended defamation.
Seen as a …” Why please? Its legal, its ethical. Its expedient. Costs little to nothing.
Sullivan was wrongly decided even as to public officials, let alone public figures. I don’t believe Brennan was motivated by anything but his personal distaste for Sullivan. I don’t believe he would have made the same ruling had the plaintiff been MLK or some other civil rights leader.
News outlets were being targeted at the time by anti-segregation figures in lawsuits to deter them from covering the civil rights marches.
First of all, I think you meant to write “pro-segregation”. Assuming this is so…
Oh, really? How did these pro-segregation figures force the news outlets to lie about them?
The court correctly saw civil liability as creating a chilling effect on the free press either by draining the publications of funds or inducing a type of self-censorship.
You mean by taking care to report the truth? That kind of self-censorship? That’s all they would have had to do, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t have been expected to do it, just as they must when making statements about private figures. What is wrong with that sort of “self-censorship”? Had the NYT taken the trouble to investigate the scurrilous allegation against Sullivan before publishing it, there would have been no case.
Did you argue this in front of Brennan?
I wish you had.
“Had the NYT taken the trouble to investigate the scurrilous allegation against Sullivan before publishing it, there would have been no case.” It is not known exactly what the NYT’s discussions and actions by mgmt.) ca 1963. It may well be that they sought a fight. American newspapers of that and the preceding era had a lot of power and money to influence public opinion. And, their honor was at stake. Just a thought.
😂 the NY Times was willing to print a FALSE advertisement asking for money no less with coupon and the committee paid for it. False light is an argument. It belonged with the FTC. Any money collected by coupon? 😂
Lame
As a threshold matter, I commend Elon Musk for the creation of community notes.
Elon Saved our public discourse from communist control.
Wouldn’t it be great to see some of the people here sue or get sued for their defamatory comments. Expose them for all the world to see. See them up close and personal, reveal their innate ugliness and hate. See the true face of MAGA and its child-soldiers who swarm over this blog like insects.
So do you also come here for the spot-on stellar commentary from Prof Turley on political malfeasance manifested by the leftards and then to rag on said leftards for said malfeasance? I do.
Wa? Is that you gdonallen?
You mean like the jellyfish?
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/03/18/erika-kirk-and-the-perils-of-being-a-public-figure/#comment-2618468
Would it not be great to see what the jellyfish was like in real life? The true face of the jellyfish and it’s child like insults?
You’re the drunken pig farmer right?
“Would it not be great to see what the jellyfish was like in real life? ”
Maybe as it was squished under the tires of some heavy vehicle. Otherwise, I’ll pass.
Ah, the smell of pure, unbridled hatred in the morning!
Love the smell of hate in the morning…. gets the blood flowing.
Let’s see what stupidities you come up with today. Lock and load wally.
Our resident f3$t3r1ng f&ck$t1ck got up early this morning. Are you sleep deprived because your @$$ d1ld0 failed last night?
Name a MAGA person who spouts lies the way that Candace Owens does, Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, Mamdani with Jews, many lefties with Jews and Israel. It is the ugly left and the oddball anti-Trump right that state these lies. Does Fox lie when compared to MSNOW and CNN, or even CBS, NBC and ABC?
hullbobby, sometimes I wonder if some of our commentators are being blackmailed. I don’t even click on such nonsense because I hate the circular firing squads, but it just gets louder.
Fox has an editorial bent. MSNOW, CNN, NBC, ABC and the DNC are outright corrupt. Foreign money, some of it dark, keeps them in business despite falling ratings and voter registrations. The movie, One Battle After Another, would have croaked without international ticket sales. Daycare fraud in MN and healthcare fraud in CA are perfect examples of conspiracies to defraud the very governments Democrats run. Money laundering in Ukraine may have been a thing, too. Joe had his finger in that pie, didn’t he?
If they can do all that, elements within that cabal can certainly engage in blackmail. Epstein showed them how.
Diogenes, I tend to see this blog as a little model of the country. We get so deep into the trees that we forget to ask what the forest looks like. One way to raise the level here is to start with a systems question instead of a team question. Who are the actors in this communication chain, how do they influence one another, and what incentives are we creating for each of them. If more of us would pause there before firing at “left media” or “MAGA liars,” we might actually learn something about why the whole system keeps producing the same kinds of failures.
ActBLue has been the subject of major laundering-money allegations. If so, where did the dark money actually come from? That’s a systems question, but it’s also a question for Democrats. Globalism has increased the influence of foreign interests in the U.S. Many of these foreign interests are engaged in asymmetrical warfare, and breaking the law has little consequence for them–another systemic problem.
Another: the Lincoln Project, a ruthless critic of Trump, was mired in scandal when allegations of the cofounder’s sexual misconduct emerged. In that case, it wasn’t dead girls but live boys. That would have been target-rich environment for blackmail.
Add in Bill Clinton changing FCC rules for ownership creating anti-trust problems.
Interesting opinion today Prof Turley. This is of note: “but such a case could offer important legal and practical benefits in the area of defamation law.” At what cost… emotional, financial etc..
E. Kirk would have been about about 10 years old at the time Epstein became renown, ca. 2000. How could she have recruited for him?
The same way that Ted Cruz could be the Zodiac Killer two years before he was born.
But Epstein was busted in 2005, when Mrs Kirk was 17.
Ah ah, so she did do it! proof positive. You are a super sleuth dude.
Wait. You’re saying Ted Cruz is not the Zodiac Killer?
The attacks on Erica, like Charlie, amount to a case of baby-snatching. The Kirks are snatching away their youth, gen Z, et al from the clutches of “total government”. This is the Left.
Similar attacks on or disregard for are the nuclear family, single unit housing, private schools, and even God. Those attacking Erika with AI fakes, websites with misinformation, and flat out lies want the government to be supreme in everyone’s life. The same people attack Trump for promoting traditional American values, the worst offences of which are individualism, religion, and family.
The Left can win. Three countries with the greatest intellectual heritage of all, England, Germany, and France, have thrown it away, focusing now on policing trivialities.
Sure don, whatever you say.
Please take your meds.
Don’t forget yours either Ano. (Please take your meds)
Now can you debate what Gdonaldallen posted?
Or child-like insults is all you have.
Child like? That’s funny coming form the likes of you, you the blog idiot.
Debate what? Like you, he’s incomprehensible.
BTW, check your spelling and grammar.
So you have no answer. Figures.
Yes you post child like answers. If he was wrong, show us how.
Instead of insults.
Ahh! The jellyfish arrives!!
Ah the oink oink fool has finally arrived. Guessing he’s drunk again, as usual.
Hey oink oink, telll us about your educational background pig man?
” BTW, check your spelling and grammar.”
Grammar Nazi is back boys! get em!
“Vee hav vays uf making you spell correctly”
Hey Dustoff, why don’t you debate Gdonaldallen?
For what reason?
Gotta love dustoff, he’s so f-ing stupid he expects an anon to “debate” the crazy gdonallen, but has no clue what there is to debate.
BTW folks, dustoff claims to have two “collage” degrees. Impressive eh?
Every time I think that your comments could not possibly get any stupider or more inane, you significantly “exceed” my expectations.
Congrats dude! Every time I think that your comments could not possibly get any stupider or more inane, you significantly “exceed” my expectations.
style-copycats are particularly adept at showing everyone their low IQ
Did you ever master the use of “by,” “buy,” or “bye?”
How about “you,” “your,” or “you’re?”
Stick “it’s” in you rear.
You’re the trannie involved in the Seattle Olympic Spa controversy right? Katie daviscourt mentioned you.
That’s a great point about England, France and Germany throwing away their intellectual heritage. Just yesterday Trump highlighted something I have been saying for some time now and that is that Great Britain has gone from Winston Churchill, the greatest person of the 20th century, to Keir Starmer, a Muslim appeasing weak-kneed little fascist that apparently worries more about the Islamic vote than little girls getting raped by invaders.
We need to let Minnesota try trump for extrajudicial murder before waiving extradition and allowing him to be tried at the Hague for murder and war crimes for assassination and bombing a girl’s school.
Pete Kegstand, too.
The Muslims never conquered England in their 8th – 15th century European invasions. Apparently they only needed to wait a while for the Brits to surrender voluntarily.