Jonathan Turley has a nice article on the Prog war on the First Amendment--it's totally out in the open, and quite unabashed. The general thrust of this attitude is supported by recent polling that shows that conservatives are most concerned about various issues facing the nation, but Dems are most concerned about ... Trump supporters. People, not policy.
Turley, of course, focuses on recent targeting by Congresscritters of the Left who are trying to pressure networks like ATT into canceling FoxNews (Turley nows does commentary there, apparently). As usual, Turley ranges widely. What I'd like to draw attention to is simply his lead in, which touches nicely on some historical context. It isn't rocket science, it's just common sense, but it's context that we all need reminding of:
Increasingly, free speech in the United States is described as a danger that needs to be controlled, as opposed to the very value that defines us as a people. While I am viewed as a “free speech purist” by many, I maintain what once was a mainstream view of free speech. I believe free speech is the greatest protection against bad speech. That view is, admittedly, under fire and may even be a minority view today. But history has shown that public or private censorship does not produce better speech. It only produces more censorship and more controlled speech.
There is no disagreement that we face a torrent of false, hateful, extremist speech on social media and in other public forums. This speech is not without cost: It fuels those filled with rage, victimizes the gullible, and alienates the marginal in our society. It is a scourge, but not a new one.
The Constitution was written not only for times like these — it was written during times like these. Politics has always been something of a blood sport, literally. At the start of our Republic, the Republicans and Federalists were not trying to “cancel” one another in the contemporary sense; they were trying to kill each other in the actual sense, through measures like the Alien and Sedition Acts. There also were rampant false conspiracy theories about alliances with Great Britain, France, Spain, and other foreign powers. Newspapers and pamphleteers were highly biased and partisan.
Members of Congress are now pushing for public and private censorship on the internet and in other forums. They are being joined by an unprecedented alliance of academics, writers and activists calling for everything from censorship to incarceration to blacklists. For example, an article published in The Atlantic by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”
Read the rest here.
Don’t forget big tech is going along with the censorship.ReplyDelete
Basically everyone that hated Trump, is pushing censorship. So many useful idiots.
House Democrats’ Attempt to Pressure TV Carriers Could Trigger Lawsuit: DershowitzReplyDelete
The attempt by several House Democrats to pressure television carriers to deplatform certain news organizations could trigger a lawsuit, law professor Alan Dershowitz said Saturday.
“When the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, it’s been interpreted to mean, take no action, it doesn’t have to be law. The First Amendment applies to presidents to governors to mayors to anybody who can abridge the freedom of speech. And I think these letters abridge the freedom of speech,” Dershowitz said during an appearance on Newsmax TV.
Reps. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) and Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.) sent a dozen letters to 12 different carriers this week urging them to deplatform or otherwise take action against Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News for allegedly spreading misleading information about the Jan. 6 Capitol breach and the COVID-19 pandemic.
It's an interesting idea. Of course when Dersh says that "it's been interpreted to mean" what he's saying is that some law prof has said so but no court has ever HELD that. Otherwise he'd have mentioned some case holding that. Still, I'd love to see someone bring the case.Delete
@Bebe and Mark; I think the Dem's feel empowered on several issues now because of the wimpy Supreme Court.Delete
If they do feel that way they could be cruisin' for a bruisin'. They're not about to get much through the Senate, and meanwhile they're showing the nation how scary they can be. Course, they've done that before ...Delete
Maybe they're not about to get much through the Senate yet, but once the Biden/ Harris DS really gets to work, obstacles like Manchin will, one way or the other, cease to exist.Delete
Yes, Turley is a recent Fox addition. I like him for 2 reasons. 1) He is a purist and I need to hear what he has to say OFTEN AND 2) He is on Fox (replacing Dershowitz I believe) and he wasn't listed as a passenger on Epstein's plane travels.ReplyDelete
In addition, I wonder if Goldsmith and Keane would take a "do over" for their thoughts about China vs. US internet censorship. Something tells me their article... almost a year ago may be different now based on the past few months. Just my opinion.
I agree. Even when I disagree with him or am frustrated by his approach, his views are usually worth hearing. He presents them clearly and it helps clarify one's own thinking.Delete
"There is no disagreement that we face a torrent of false, hateful, extremist speech on social media and in other public forums."
The problem is that a lot of the "hateful, extremist speech (as so labelled by the Left) on social media and in other public forums" isn't false.
Well, he rather slyly doesn't specify what direction it's coming from.Delete
He has, however, been outspoken about the extremist anti-First Amendment rhetoric coming from the Left.Delete
"Well, he rather slyly doesn't specify what direction it's coming from."Delete
What got me annoyed this morning is Trump's CPAC speech and his push for maintaining the Republican-uniparty.ReplyDelete
Knowing what he has to know about the size and scope of the two party corruption, I'm grasping at straws to understand his insistence on trying to flush a toilet of that size.
Unless it's purely for revenge, I don't see how it's going to help us much. The donner class and lobbyist grifters can't be replaced or out voted. Their just going to keep corrupting the organization.
Just when everyone had given up, shipwreckedcrew has this:ReplyDelete
Former Trump Trade Official Peter Navarro Says There Will be at Least Three Indictments Coming from John Durham
SWC admits having skepticism, noting that Navarro (whose history as a Democrat he includes) wasn’t involved in the areas being explored by the Durham investigation. But SWC also grants that he was very much an insider, expecially when other aides and advisers to the President fell away. He winds up with this:
I’m not sure Navarro’s “bomblet” is as meaningful as it sounded when he first made it. But it is impossible to dismiss his prediction altogether given his “insider” status in the true inner circle of the Trump White House.
There is a reason why Durham took the appointment from Barr as Special Counsel and has remained in place now for almost 40 days since the Biden Administration came into office.
The reason I didn't address that is this.Delete
Numbers are basically meaningless when it comes to indictments--unless the numbers are large. The sentence that Clinesmith received means he's useless in terms of testimony against the important conspirators--he won't cooperate at this point. That means 'climbing the ladder' is probably out of the question, especially with the Obama DoJ being put back in place. They'll find a way to tie Durham's hands, if he isn't willing to tie his own hands. In the big picture--which is what this is really all about, the Deep State and draining the Swamp--three more indictments, if they happen, would almost certainly be meaningless.
In other words, don’t get too excited about this. I believe we are all somewhat beyond getting excited when it comes to ever seeing justice being rendered on those who hatched and perpetrated the coup.Delete
totally off this topic- but Durham resigned, effect 2/28 at midnight...think he left his report in the xerox machine at the end of the hall...the machine that's been jammed since last July or so...ReplyDelete
No. He only resigned as USA for CT, not from his position as SC.Delete
ok- I didn't realize that. I hope that helps him finish the report and get it out!Delete
Yeah, 3 out of a thousand really isn't something to cheer. I'd bet on process type crimes, minimal sentences and aloof plea deals all over again if even true.ReplyDelete
If Durham was tearing up the process of being a SC in any legitimate way I would expect very loud preemptive narrative creation such as defense attorneys complaining about client harassment, leaked excuses of improper questioning, and grand jury subpoena over stepping in their favorite defence rags (NY Times, The WP, etc). We've really heard none of that coming from any of the lawfare groups common to the deep state defences since the time of Peter, Lisa and Mccabe's eyeballing 2-3 years ago.
Devoid of that pattern, I'm guessing there is not much going on anywhere with Durham.
I thought we long ago established that the rule of law is dead, so why are we wasting time waiting for the corpse to rise and speak? The stark reality of the entire DC establishment working together to eject Trump, the duly elected Trump, is about all the reality we need at this point I would say. They don't answer to us, they don't care what we think or say or even how we vote. Whether its Chief Justice Roberts, or AG Barr or the "Honorable" Judge Sullivan, or "Top Cop" Chris Wray -- whatever they're selling, justice ain't it. Trump seems to believe he can accomplish something with a second bite at the apple and a little populist political pressure -- I don't know but what seems to be required is a full cleaning out of the Augean stables and I'm with you devilman, I don't see how it happens... Mark AReplyDelete