After my testimony before the Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government yesterday, I found myself the subject of a segment on MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell where criticized me for a bizarre exchange with freshman Democrat Dan Goldman. O’Donnell did not actually show the full exchange, but the claim is patently false and I wanted to briefly respond.
Continue reading “A Response to Lawrence O’Donnell on the Weaponization Hearing”
Even after the collapse of the Russian collusion investigation, Democrats seem to be doubling down on labeling opponents as Russian lovers and Putinites. Yesterday, I testified at a hearing with members of Congress who want the House to investigate possible FBI abuses. One of the witnesses, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, testified how her anti-war positions led to her being labeled a Russian asset by Hillary Clinton. Not to be outdone, MSNBC contributor and former Senator Claire McCaskill appeared on MSNBC following the hearing to denounce Senator Chuck Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson as “Putin apologists” and Putin lovers. Continue reading ““Putin Apologists”: Former Sen. Claire McCaskill Denounces Senators Calling for Investigation of FBI Abuses”
This afternoon I will testify at the first hearing of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Below is my written testimony.
The Twitter Files raise serious questions of whether the United States government is now a partner in what may be the largest censorship system in our history. The involvement cuts across the Executive Branch, with confirmed coordination with agencies ranging from the CDC to the CIA. Even based on our limited knowledge, the size of this censorship system is breathtaking, and we only know of a fraction of its operations through the Twitter Files. Twitter has 450 million active users but it is still only ranked 15th in the number of users, after companies such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Pinterest. The assumption is that the government censorship program dovetailed with these other companies, which continue to refuse to share past communications or work with the government. Assuming that these efforts extended to these larger platforms, it is a government-supported censorship system that is unparalleled in history. Continue reading “Turley Testifies on Censorship Before House Select Subcommittee”
Yesterday’s hearing of the House Oversight Committee featured three former Twitter executives who are at the center of the growing censorship scandal involving the company: Twitter’s former chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde, former deputy general counsel James Baker and former head of trust and safety Yoel Roth. However, it was the testimony of the only witness called by the Democrats that proved the most enlightening and chilling. Former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli testified on what she repeatedly called the “nuanced” standard used by her and her staff on censorship. Toward the end of the hearing, she was asked about that standard by Rep. Melanie Ann Stansbury (D., NM). Her answer captured precisely why Twitter’s censorship system proved a nightmare for free expression. Stansbury’s agreement with her take on censorship only magnified the concerns over the protection of free speech on social media.
Last night, President Joe Biden gave his second State of the Union address. It was difficult to watch at points. Biden made a series of questionable statements like claiming that he added 12 million new jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Biden has only added 2.7 million overall jobs. However, it was his statement on assault weapons that stood out for some of us who have previously flagged his claims as legally and statistically flawed. The claims have not improved with repetition.
Continue reading “Biden Repeats Dubious Call and Claim on Assault Weapons in State of the Union”
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the District Court for the District of Columbia has caused a bit of a stir after a hearing in a criminal case where she called for briefing on the alternative grounds for the right to an abortion. At the hearing, Judge Kollar-Kotelly suggested that the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on involuntary servitude could be used to guarantee a women’s right to an abortion notwithstanding the Court’s recent opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court stressed that the decision that there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion was based on the 14th Amendment, but was silent on the 13th Amendment or other grounds. The problem is that silence may be the most charitable response to this highly dubious theory, which has been bantered about in academic circles for years. The theory runs against the text, history, and case law of the Thirteenth Amendment.
In my torts class, I teach “Dram Shop” cases where bars and restaurants are subject to civil liability for “overserving” customers. These lawsuits are generally brought by third parties who are injured in car accidents by drunk drivers. In that sense, a Texas case has all of the classic elements of a Dram Shop case: Dylan Molina drank eight high-alcohol drinks in roughly three hours before leaving and getting into a wreck that killed a police detective and seriously injured his family. The difference is that the bartender, Cala Richardson, 26, is being criminally prosecuted for overserving Molina.
The family of University of Idaho stabbing victim Kaylee Goncalves is appealing a gag order imposed upon them and others in the case against suspected killer, Bryan Kohberger. That appeal is supported by media organizations. As a long-standing critic of these gag orders on free speech grounds, it should come as no surprise that I believe that this order should be viewed as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. However, courts have steadily increased the scope of these orders despite the curtailment of First Amendment rights. Continue reading “Victim’s Family in the University of Idaho Murders Appeals Gag Order”
Below is my column in the Hill on the first hearings this week to be held by the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. It could be one of the most consequential investigations for free speech in decades if it pulls back the curtain on government censorship programs. After the historic release of the Twitter Files by Elon Musk, questions remain on any similar coordination with other social media companies with federal agencies like the FBI to target views considered “disinformation” or “misinformation.”
Here is the column: Continue reading “Congress is Set to Expose What May be the Largest Censorship System in U.S. History”
We recently discussed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit striking down a ban on gun ownership by individuals accused of domestic abuse. Now, U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick in Oklahoma City dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison for violating a federal law that makes it illegal for “unlawful users or addicts of controlled substances” to possess firearms. It is only the latest such loss for the Justice Department as the Biden Administration pushes sweeping rationales for limiting Second Amendment rights in the wake of last year’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
There is a fascinating and chilling survey on the state of free speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The newly released Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) survey shows a growing fear among faculty over their ability to speak freely in classes or other forums on campus. Conversely, a majority of students believe that it is acceptable to shout down or block speakers who hold opposing views. The survey captures the downstream impact of students who have been taught in their primary, middle, and high school educations that speech is harmful and preventing free speech is a noble and necessary action.
Various intelligence and defense figures including former Defense Secretary Mark Esper have suggested trying to capture the Chinese surveillance balloon to analyze its equipment and any content. China admits that this may be its balloon but denies that it is used for surveillance. It says that it was lost accidentally due to weather. So the balloon may be ours but it was lost. However, the government is likely to oppose anyone collecting or using information from the balloon. That sounded vaguely familiar. Indeed, Abbe Lowell may have a new client (Indeed, a client with past dealings with his current client, Hunter Biden).
Update: After the United States shot down the balloon, China appeared to send out a Lowell-like message that “China will resolutely uphold the relevant company’s legitimate rights and interests, and at the same time reserving the right to take further actions in response.”
For months, media has been relishing the investor lawsuit against Elon Musk, who became persona non grata when he moved to restore free speech protections on Twitter. Coverage spoke of Musk losing billions in the lawsuit while others speculated that Musk might be “setting himself up to lose Tesla.” Not yet. Not only are stock prices up for Tesla, but Musk just won a unanimous verdict in the investor trial. The reaction to the trial has been a shrug from critics as they continue to try to hammer Musk into submission. It does not appear to be working.
Continue reading “Buzz Kill: Critics Shrug as Musk Wins Major Victory in Court”
There is a major ruling this week in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit where a three-judge panel ruled unanimously in United States v. Rahimi that the federal bar on gun possession for individuals under a domestic violence restraining order violates the Second Amendment. The opinion is most notable for its exploration of the historical analogues supporting the rule, as required under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The case also relied on a dissenting opinion in an appellate case, Kanter v. Barr, by then Judge Amy Coney Barrett, which I discussed during her nomination.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the letters sent by Hunter Biden’s lawyer Abbe Lowell calling for criminal investigations, the removal of tax exempt status, and other measures targeting critics and media. It also appears to confirm that the laptop is indeed Hunter’s. However, the next day, Lowell told NBC “These letters do not confirm Mac Isaac’s or others’ versions of a so-called laptop.” It is a curious position when asking for criminal investigations like asking police to look for people who may or may not have stolen a car that may or may not be yours. The defamation and privacy claims suggested in the letter are dubious and ill-defined. However, Hunter is apparently asking for money to pay for his high-priced legal team. It is not clear if these donations would also be used to fund his cruel and craven effort to prevent his daughter from using his surname. Nevertheless, Hunter is outraged that the computer that he abandoned has been used for what his lawyer calls “this failed dirty political trick.”
Here is the column: Continue reading ““Dirty Political Trick”: Hunter Biden Calls for Criminal Investigations of Critics and Media”