Trump Vows to 'Protect Free Speech,' Yet Trump Favors Censoring the Internet, Silencing the Press, and Shuttering Houses of Worship

Don't believe Trump's bogus vow to defend free speech.

Todd Kranin

Donald Trump made a lot of empty promises in his speech at the Republican National Convention last night. Among them was Trump's vow to "protect free speech for all Americans."

That promise is particularly empty in light of the fact that Trump has shown nothing but contempt for the First Amendment and its guarantees of free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion throughout the 2016 campaign. After all, this is the same Trump who favors government censorship of the internet in order to suppress speech that he finds objectionable. It's the same Trump who favors gutting libel laws in order to make it easier for him to silence journalists who write unkind things about him. It's the same Trump who wants the government to forcibly shutter houses of worship in which people might say, read, or think unpopular things.

Trump is an enemy of the First Amendment and it's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Sadly, the same thing can be said about Hillary Clinton, whose own record on First Amendment issues is equally deplorable. As I've noted before, the Clinton-Trump contest is truly depressing for all fans of the free speech and the First Amendment.

Comments

[AddictionMyth]

Their basic argument is "Free speech is essential, and I'll defend it, but you can't have free speech without security." Of course, people who believe that will have neither, as Ben Franklin explained hundreds of years ago. Note Trump's excitement about the surveillance state - "The best and smartest technology in the world!"

[WTF]

And also, hate speech is not free speech! That's why we must overturn Citizen's United!

[Nativist, Racist & Xenophobe]

How the world butchered Franklin's quote on Liberty vs. Security

[Cytotoxic]

The new version is more accurate.

[Zeb]

That's an interesting story. But I like the phrase because of what it says, not who said it, so Franklin's original intent isn't terribly relevant.

[SIV]

And GayJay opooses freedom of association and supports forced cake-baking slavery.

[Hugh Akston]

Plus he hates it when you call him Daddy!

[WTF]

It's always about the cake. They all want cake.

[bassjoe]

Who doesn't want cake? Other than 18th century French peasants, obviously...

[Kool]

Fucking, YAWN, Siv. Fucking Yawn. If you really believe Trump is better than Gary, you're more lost than I can possbibly help. Jesus. Give it a rest.

[Bob Meyer]

^Bingo!

[Cytotoxic]

BUT BOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH HIIIIITLLARY GAYJAY

[woody the woodchipper]

Not even remotely comparable yokel

[Je suis Woodchipper]

i thought Johnson's distinction was that you had to bake the cake (mix eggs, flour, yeast, etc) due to public accommodation but you didn't have to write anything on it b/c that would be compelled speech.

[Mickey Rat]

I believe Johnson got incoherent on the subject when it came to decorating, which is speech and what specialty cake Baker's are all about.

[Zeb]

Don't you get bored repeating all the same shit every day?

[Rich]

the Clinton-Trump contest is truly depressing for all fans of the free speech and the First Amendment.

FTFY

/Captain Obvious

[bassjoe]

When will John come to say that Trump's vision for the First Amendment is merely what we lived under 40-50 years ago and the Republic managed to survive? Because the Republic surviving is the only thing important in the universe.

[WTF]

The Republic has been dead for quite some time.

[bassjoe]

I think it's alive; we still (at least nominally) have the structures upon which the Republic was formed (three branches of government, the states, etc.). Whether it still follows its foundational documents is a separate question.

[WTF]

The structures are there in name only, they no longer actually perform the functions for which they were intended. Not in any meaningful way.

[Derp-o-Matic 5000]

The other two branches have ceded all power to the presidency. The Supreme Court still pretends it hasn't, but Congress has more or less openly given up.

[Cytotoxic]

The Supreme Court is not pretending. Obama has lost more cases there than any modern president.

[John Titor]

The Roman Senate and the title of 'Senator' survived until the 13th century. Didn't mean that the Roman Republic lasted that long.

[Bobarian (Would Chip Her)]

I think it's alive;

But it's shambling around, looking to eat your brains.

[Derp-o-Matic 5000]

Opinions on the actual date of death vary, but I usually go with 1937.

[Clich? Bandit]

14th Amendment. That set the stage for National Government as opposed to Federal Government. That is my favorite bright-line. However, 1913 is a good one too.

[Derp-o-Matic 5000]

14th Amendment is probably a good line of demarcation. That was when we stopped being a union of free and independent states and the federal government became the indisputable dominant force. The 17th Amendment removed any vestige of State power. 1937 is when our government stopped being one of limited and enumerated powers.

[Zeb]

It's probably best to look at the end of the civil war as the founding of a new country. And the new country was worse in some ways and much, much better in others. The trouble really started later when the federal government really started to balloon, which was probably more to do with income tax and direct election of senators.

But, what happened happened and it's silly to obsess about a country that stopped existing 150 years ago. The 14th has a lot of good stuff in it. Yes, it made the states more subject to teh federal government. But fuck the states. They are just as shitty and authoritarian as any other government. Federalism isn't freedom, constitutionalism isn't freedom. Only freedom is freedom.

[Derp-o-Matic 5000]

But fuck the states. They are just as shitty and authoritarian as any other government. Federalism isn't freedom, constitutionalism isn't freedom. Only freedom is freedom.

I'd further add that democracy, direct or indirect, isn't freedom.

Agreed that the states can be, were, and often still are authoritarian fucks. Local government, at least in theory, is more responsive to the needs of and more reliant upon the support and consent of the governed than a centralized bureaucracy fifteen hundred miles away. When the guy whose rights you're trampling, property you're seizing, etc., lives down the street and represents more than one one-hundred-millionth of your support, you are more likely to think of individuals and not polling statistics.

[Billy Bones]

I would argue even earlier than that. In my opinion, the Republic, for all intents and purposes, died April 12, 1861, when a group of states declared war on another group of states for wanting to leave the Republic.

[Cytotoxic]

Yes, what really ruined America was the lack of a criminal slave state neighbor. The one who started the shooting.

[Derp-o-Matic 5000]

Perhaps against my better judgment, I'm going to assume your oversimplification of the Civil War and complete missing of the other real and complex issues is a result of your being Canadian and not stupidity.

[Cytotoxic]

When he escapes from his padded cell yet again.

You forgot the mind-reading he'll engage in (Y'ALL FAGGOT SOCIAL SIGNALLING COSMOZ).

[Bob Meyer]

We can not only have the freedom we had 40-50 years ago but the same standard of living with Trump's trade policies. Maybe we can have the same kind of society where niggers, spics and fags knew their place and "scabs" could be beaten by union thugs while cops stood by approvingly.

Anyone waxing lyrical over the "golden age" is a fool. Life in the 50's and 60's really sucked if you weren't "free, white and 21" (some of you may remember that phrase). Even if you were FW21 the pressures to conform were incredibly oppressive. Try refusing to say the obscene "Pledge of Allegiance" which made school children take oaths of fealty to the state and see what would happen to you.

The past's best claim to fame is that it is over and in the past.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

"Trump Vows to 'Protect Free Speech,' Yet Trump Favors Censoring the Internet, Silencing the Press, and Shuttering Houses of Worship"

And this makes him different from Shrillary how?

Well, in the first place if Bubba's charming shrew - I mean wife - gets elected she will actually have allies in congress, so there's a much larger chance that she will get what she wants.

And in the second place, there's the issue of who they want to silence. Is Trump talking about censoring pro-jihad websites? I disagree with that, but I understand the impulse. I understand Shrillary's impulse to silence absolutely anybody who crosses her, or her Progressive butt buddies, but I also feel contempt for it. I suspect that the "Places of Worship" Trump wants to shutter are Mosques whose Imams preach violence. Again, I disagree with him, but it is a lesser violation that Shrillary's impulse to silence any Christian worship that doesn't geld itself.

[woody the woodchipper]

He mentioned Hillary nitwit

[Free Market Socialist $park?]

Nobody reads past the headline.

[Derp-o-Matic 5000]

You actually finish the headline? Nerd!

[Cynical Asshole]

REEDING IZ 4 CUCKZ 'N' FAGZ!!!1!!!!!!!!!

[Cytotoxic]

You're assuming that Trump won't have allies ie pawns in Congress if he were elected. This is hope projected as fact.

[Crusty Juggler]

Trump is an enemy of the First Amendment and it's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Yeah, but what about Hillary, Cosmo?

Sadly, the same thing can be said about Hillary Clinton, whose own record on First Amendment issues is equally deplorable.

Oh. Ummm...COSMO!

[Gojira]

False equivalence! Why won't Reason admit that Hillary is worse! That proves they're not just slightly to the left of me personally, but actually full-on progressive SJWs, which is the only political position it is possible to take if you are to the left of wherever I am on any given issue (unless you're a republican, in which case you are not a libertarian nor an SJW, and I'll still vote for you because HILLARY IS WORSE!!!).

[Suthenboy]

Wanting to gut libel laws (with which he will have zero luck) because of things people said about him personally is not quite on the same level as having the justice department prosecute people who have opinions that don't line up with the official government list of acceptable opinions. One is an impotent temper tantrum from a spoiled individual that will go nowhere and the other is a truly Stalinesque destruction of the country that has already gotten some traction under a dem administration. Let Hillary put two more Ginsbergs on the court and it will get more than a little traction.

Clueless Reason writers will be sitting in a cell in a secret prison trying to figure out how the fuck they got there under Cankles. Under Trump they can just tell him to fuck off. If they really thought he would be able to pull it off they wouldn't be bashing him so hard, now would they?

Maybe, instead of foaming at the mouth and hysterically blowing everything Trump completely out of proportion Reason writers could give us 100 pro-Johnson articles and lay his positions out in clear, concise terms. Who would he pick for the SC? Give us names.

[woody the woodchipper]

Jesus I was too late for libel expansion apologia

[Free Market Socialist $park?]

YEAH YOU DUMBASS COSMOS! GET IN YOUR FUCKING CELLS AND ROT THERE!

[RBS]

Yeah, let's not have anyone get hysterical here.

[Cytotoxic]

This is a guy who seriously believes there's a Swedish 'rape epidemic' as a consequence of too many foreign people. I've debunked it several times for him but facts and logic are for homo cosmoz.

[Cytotoxic]

"Clueless Reason writers will be sitting in a cell in a secret prison trying to figure out how the fuck they got there under Cankles. Under Trump they can just tell him to fuck off. "

More hope/fantasy projected as fact.

[Zeb]

I suspect the people trying to prosecute climate heretics are going to have zero luck as well.

At this point I sort of hope Trump wins so we can see who is right about what he's going to be like. And because he will probably actually be somewhat scrutinized by the media.

[This Machine]

OT: From John's b?te-noir: What Does Hillary Want?

The Clintons like money. This is obvious. It seems to me that Bill likes it a little more intensely than Hillary does, being, as he is, a deeply insecure man who has spent his entire life keeping score: Whether it's his net worth or his approval polls or bedpost-notching, Bill Clinton has always looked to quantify his value as a man. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, seems like the kind of woman for whom a few hundred million dollars would be sufficient. She could probably be quite happy on the salary of a big-city school superintendent, provided she never had to fly commercial or see a hotel bill. Whatever it is that gets her out of bed in the morning, it isn't the prospect of another $12,000 Armani jacket.

I think it's been discussed here before - Hillary Clinton doesn't really care about the hundreds of millions she's made taking bribes from foreign heads of State, she cares about cementing her status as Most Powerful Woman. Power is not the means to any end for her - it is the end. I'm not voting for either of these charlatans come November, but if I had my druthers I'd take the arrogant buffoon over the power-hungriest harridan to ever run for public office.

[John]

Money is her way of keeping score of how much power she has. She didn't want the money because she needed it. She wants it because people giving it shows how much power she has.

It is a common indoor outdoor sport among partisans of both sides to talk about how the other side's candidate is crazy or suffering from some deep psychological issue. Hillary might actually be the first instance where it might be true. She seems to have some very deep and troubling psychological issues. I don't think you can trust her to ever do the right thing even for the wrong reasons.

[Illocust]

If I'm remembering which auto biography I read, I believe Hillary's dad was one of those people who punished their children for getting one B instead of all A's. Honestly, I just assume all politicians have some sort of issue or another. You can't maintain the dedication to campaign trail and years of backroom wheeling and dealing necessary otherwise.

[John]

Bill Clinton is by all accounts a Wilt Chamberlain level sex addict. It is credibly estimated that he has slept with thousands of women over the years. And of course everyone knows that and it is a punch line to a very old joke. And Hillary has stayed married to him. Even after Bill left the White House she still stayed married. If Hillary had divorced Bill the week after he left office, no one on either side would have blamed her. Bill couldn't run for office anymore and she could have rightfully claimed she stayed with him for the good of the party and the country until he left office. Yet, she is still married to him.

There is something really fucked up with all of that.

[Rhywun]

I don't think she would have advanced beyond first lady without him, and she knows it.

[John]

She likely thinks that but I am not sure that it is true. Regardless, that means she has been willing to remain married to a horrible person who has done nothing but humiliate her over and over again because that is what is necessary to her pursuit of power. That is pretty fucked up when you think about it.

[Billy Bones]

I'm too lazy today to look it up, but Bill's former lover said as much in her "tell all" book just published. He was basically devastated when he heard how far behind Wilt he was in his "conquests".

[This Machine]

Hillary might actually be the first instance where it might be true. She seems to have some very deep and troubling psychological issues.

That's pretty much what KDW is saying here. That she's had to face humiliation after humiliation to help her husband (and herself) gain public office, and that getting to the White House will vindicate it all, or so she thinks. it doesn't help that she almost certainly has medical issues stemming from the clot in her brain from years ago.

[John]

She is a figure out of Greek tragedy. It is not going to end well for her. Either she will lose this November and have to face that it was all for nothing or she will win and end up being destroyed by her cravenness.

I think a lot of the hyperbole about how dangerous Trump is is people projecting that on him because they don't want to contemplate how dangerous Hillary would be. Most people didn't and some still don't think Trump has any chance of winning. So thinking he is dangerous is fun and makes you feel important but since you don't think he will win isn't all that scary. Hillary in contrast may win and according to some is guaranteed to win. So thinking about how dangerous she is is real in a way it isn't for a lot of people with Trump.

If Hillary wins, she will consider herself untouchable. She will just get more craven and her misconduct only get worse. She isn't going to reform. A Hillary administration will be an orgy of bribery, revenge and depravity. The only question is how much damage she will do before things get so bad they have to impeach her or 2020 rolls around and they finally can get her out of office.

And I think people are wrong to think she couldn't be impeached. A lot of Democrats hate her. And she is not the first black president. She also would start out in a much weaker position than Obama did. If Hillary were to win and the Democrats suffer a 2010 like disaster in 2018 from their already weakened position, the knives would come out.

[Suthenboy]

She would lie if the truth served her better.

[Cytotoxic]

KDW is a better writer than many here, and Hillary is still obviously less dangerous than a mentally ill fascist.

[John]

In fairness, you do have some experience with being a mentally ill fascist. So there is that.

[Bobarian (Would Chip Her)]

I thought this was John's b?te-noir?

[John]

I am not trusting that as being safe for work. So I just hope that is a good joke.

[Bobarian (Would Chip Her)]

It is safe for work. It's a "A digital magazine for Feedees, Feeders, Gainers, Fat Admirers and Encouragers.

Ravenous Magazine is a site dedicated to delivering articles and content to the Feedism community. We cater to all walks of life, kinks and people."

[This Machine]

Well, that's in my browser history now.

*sighs, mouses over "delete history" command... again*

[woody the woodchipper]

In b4 some1 explains how somehow expanding the scope of libel jives with free speech

[bacon-magic]

You speak jive?

[Suthenboy]

How would one go about expanding the scope of libel? Stomp their feet? Hold their breath?

[Suthenboy]

Perhaps one of our esteemed legal scholars could explain libel laws. Is this something handled in State courts with 50 different sets of laws or something you can take into federal court with one overarching law for all?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Why does Trump need to censor the internet when it seems Facebook and Twitter will do it for him?

[Derp-o-Matic 5000]

Twitter will only get rid of the pro-Trump users.

[Free Market Socialist $park?]

They're not doing it right. Trump will ensure it's done right.

[Suthenboy]

What is the point of having power you don't use? First we would have to reclassify the internet as a public utility and have the FCC....oh, wait.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Thank you progressive douchebags, for lining up the pins for a Trump presidency.

[John]

It's the same Trump who favors gutting libel laws in order to make it easier for him to silence journalists who write unkind things about him.

No, he favors libel laws that treat public figures differently than regular people. The current libel laws basically give the media a license to lie about public figures. Unless you can prove they knew something was a lie when they printed it, a public figure has no recourse when the media libels or slanders them. And of course that is a nearly impossible standard. All the publication has to do is say "someone told us this and we believed them" and they are off the hook. They have no duty to fact check or take any efforts to ensure what they are saying is actually true. All they have to do is not print something they know is a lie at the time of publication and they are off the hook.

Libel laws are of course abused in other country and are used to suppress dissent. Those countries have different libel laws than what Trump is advocating. In Europe the defendant must prove the truth of the statement. When that happens, that is where libel becomes a weapon against free speech. In America, the standard is and would remain that the plaintiff has to prove the statement is false. That an enormous difference.

The reason staffers not only seem to not know much, they seem to like being that way.

[John]

Libel laws that DON'T treat public figures differently. Forgot the don't in the above post.

[egould310]

In this age of social media, isn't everybody a "public figure"? We broadcast our thoughts and opinions to million of people worldwide with every tweet.

Does Trump want exceptions for elected officials? Ihaven't been following this at all. So does Trump want to lower the standards for libel? If so, why wouldn't it apply to everybody?

[John]

No he doesn't want exceptions from what I have seen. And no everyone is not a public figure. All he would do is overturn NYT v. Sullivan and go back to the standards we had before 1961 or whenver it was that case was decided.

It should also be pointed out, neither Trump nor Congress can overturn NYT v. Sullivan. That is a Supreme Court Decision that interpreted common law libel and slander laws in light of the 1st Amendment. So no matter what Trump wants, he has very little chance of achieving it.

Yet, reason never mentions this and forever dredges up the same idiotic talking point over and over again. They are just willfully ignorant. It is not a difficult issue and something you could learn about in a half our of reading on the internet. The staff likes being misinformed I guess.

[egould310]

Thanks. And one more thing, who is considered a "public figure"?

[John]

Someone who is an elected official or "pervasively involved in public affairs", i.e. a celebrity or famous well known person, or someone who is not one of those but made themselves a public figure by entering into a public controversy.

So right now I am not a public figure. If I somehow walked out onto the stage during Hillary's acceptance speech and took the microphone and started explaining Kayne style how Bernie Sanders should really have won the nomination, I would become a public figure.

[egould310]

Thanks

[R C Dean]

John's pretty much on target here, IMO.

[Jickerson]

Who is this "we" and "everybody"? Not everyone is a sucker who participates in "social media" nonsense.

[Illocust]

Huh, I can understand the argument for it based upon no two classes of citizens, but I can't really be for it because it could take down people that honestly thought they were telling the truth and just didn't have access to the facts that would prove otherwise.

[John]

It would not do that at all. The standard in an ordinary libel suit is negligence. If the person took reasonable efforts to ensure the truth of what they said or printed and had a reasonable belief it was true, the plaintiff loses even if the information turned out to be false.

Under the reckless disregard standard that reason thinks is so vital to free speech, the publication can be completely negligent in their fact checking and unreasonable in their belief that a slander is true and still win the case if the plaintiff is a public figure. They only lose if their disregard was "reckless" which in practice means they knew it wasn't true and printed it anyway or the allegation was so obviously untrue that only someone with no concern for the truth would have printed it.

[Illocust]

Ah, gotcha, I'm not up to date on libel law. Thanks for the explanation. That sounds much better. Still could end up with judicial creep on what is considered a reasonable effort, but way more reasonable than what I thought it would do.

[Cytotoxic]

"The current libel laws basically give the media a license to lie about public figures."

As it should. Oh but I'm sure the Truth Courts set up by president Trump will be totally fair and objective.

[John]

God you are a moron. You really are. No one, not even people who defend the NYT v. Sullivan, think slander of public figures should be allowed and is a good thing.

You are so stupid you don't even understand the issues involved or how to defend your own size. You just show up like some retard who escaped his sheltered workshop and start saying words like you know what they mean.

It is just epic how stupid you are sometimes.

[This Machine]

You are so stupid you don't even understand the issues involved or how to defend your own size.

I love John-os. WE HAVE THE BEST JOHN-OS, DON'T WE?!

[Derp-o-Matic 5000]

No one, not even people who defend the NYT v. Sullivan, think slander of public figures should be allowed and is a good thing.

Harry Reid, but Congress has special rules.

[Jickerson]

No one, not even people who defend the NYT v. Sullivan, think slander of public figures should be allowed and is a good thing.

I don't think it's a good thing, but I think it should be allowed.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Trump can use Canada as a working model.

[Auric Demonocles]

Four Trump posts in a row? Am I on Facebook or did he already win the Presidency and then outlaw alt-text?

[John]

For someone who according to reason has no chance of winning and whose nomination ensures the Republicans have no future, reason seems awfully panicked over him. There seems to be a lot of over compensating going on.

[Crusty Juggler]

It's almost like there was a big convention this week.

[John]

Covering him is one thing. Shitting your pants and claiming he is the doom of the GOP is something else.

[Crusty Juggler]

Can you even explain what the GOP stands for? I do not think anyone can. I do not think that bodes well for them.

[Illocust]

GOP, Grand Old Party.

[Crusty Juggler]

Wisenheimer.

[Illocust]

Can't just say smartass like the rest of us can you Crusty.

[bacon-magic]

^Got him.

[John]

Which part of the GOP? It has become a very big and raucous party. I can explain what Trump stands for. He stands for more than anything the nationalist rejection of globalism and along with it the political and economic elites who have used the current system to socialize their risks and privatize their profits.

As for the rest of the GOP, most agree with that sentiment. But some are flat out transnationalists who like the current system. And some are legitimate small government originalists who don't really understand the beefs the Trump faction has.

[Crusty Juggler]

I can explain what Trump stands for.

No snark: no one can explain what Trump stands for.

The GOP is a disaster. Here is what I see: anti-immigration (which means many things to many people), pro-intervention (which is awful), zero interest in spending less money, and obsessed with needlessly losing a culture war. Add in Trump to that and it becomes a jumbled stew of hateful emotion and impotent proclamations.

[John]

I just did Crusty. Why is my explanation wrong? I understand you don't agree with him. But how is that not an accurate explanation of what he stands for?

[Cytotoxic]

The GOP simply has no future worth having at this point. We're never seeing another GOP president.

[John]

Tell us more how libel and slander is a good thing Cytoxic.

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

We're getting to the point where the "shitting your pants" complaint has lost all meaning!

[John]

I get the feeling a lot of words don't have much meaning to you, but I don't think it is because they lost their meaning to you.

If you don't understand, I am happy to explain. Reason has managed to convince itself that a candidate who holds a mixture of center left to center right views, all of which were at one time accepted by one or both parties as recently as the last century, is some kind of Hugo Chavez meets Hitler like monster who is going to start World War III and declare himself God emperor.

Call it what you want but their reaction has been nothing short of insane.

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

Still don't see any "panic." A whole lot of denunciation and mocking. Some of it outsized, particularly in that punditry way of being needlessly bold, and some of it fair and interesting and worthy.

smooches

[John]

Panic is a subjective term. If you don't think it is panic, okay. I just don't see any other way to explain the amount of absurd hyperbole over this issue. I understand that they don't support Trump and I wouldn't expect them to. Indeed, as has been said before, there are few easier assignments a reason staffer could get than "the Libertarian case against Trump".

Yet, they can't seem to make the reasonable case even though it is obvious to anyone paying attention. Instead, they continually make the unreasonable case against Trump and end up looking a bit nuts. I don't understand why they just can't calm down and give an objective account of what Trump is and is not and the Libertarian objections to that.

What is wrong with saying "Trump is wrong when he says we should restrict immigration and engage in protectionism and here is why"? Why does it always half to involve distortions of his position, half assed psychological assessments and fear mongering about his malevolent intentions?

[This Machine]

What is wrong with saying "Trump is wrong when he says we should restrict immigration and engage in protectionism and here is why"? Why does it always half to involve distortions of his position, half assed psychological assessments and fear mongering about his malevolent intentions?

Because it's not enough. Reason has to compete with dozens of other outlets all reporting on the same handful of events, all of which are vacuuming up page views based on hyperbolic emotional clickbait garbage. Dry dissection of issues, actions, and motives is boring. So fucking boring. Look at any number of the well-written articles here on, well, pretty much anything else. No comments. No clicks. No one cares. So you gotta match the level of emotional hyperbole if you wanna compete. It's a buyer's market, man.

[John]

machine,

They are a foundation sucking up the Koch's millions. They don't have to operate like a for profit newspaper. They are supposed to be better than that. They are supposed to give the dry and truthful analysis. They are not supposed to be the Daily Mail. And if they are, can they please start putting up the latest bikini picks of Hollywood Starlets and super models? If they are going to go for clicks, go for clicks.

[This Machine]

Hey, I'm in complete agreement with you there. I think the general argument one might use is, "Well, we use clickbait and hysteria to get non-libertarians to read the articles, which spreads the Message better than dry fact-centered analysis and in the end produces more liberty-minded folks." I'm not saying it's good, or right, just that it's one possible reason for it.

But yeah, if they're going for clicks, let's see some Lobster Girl bikini contests.

[This Machine]

I'll withhold my judgment until I see the coverage of the DNC. Man, is that going to be a spectacle.

[John]

I suspect it will be. Call me cynical but I imagine reason will do a lot of parsing, giving of the benefit of the doubt, "yeah but" and chin scratching thoughtful concern pieces during that week. We shall see, whoever.

[Dennis, Constitutional Peasant]

its been nonstop trumpdoomsplosion since yesterday.

there must be some contest for "who can make the most hyperbolic claims extrapolating from shallow campaign rhetoric".

The winner gets a ....? (suggestions welcome) Fewer lashings? Permission to speak to Postrel while serving canapes on the Reason Summer Cruise? A bonus paid in Koch-Industries store-scrip?

I personally think Robby is in the lead for his absolute assurance that "conversations w/ 2 people + some old polls" have demonstrated conclusively that an entire generation has deemed Trump an unholy untouchable. (*despite sharing a variety of policy ideas w/ Bernie Sanders)

[This Machine]

Millenials love capitalism, dude. That's why they showed up in droves to vote for a socialist during the primaries.

[Playa Manhattan.]

Ruh Roh.

Shooting spree in Munich.

[Illocust]

....I take back my earlier comment about no way is Germany going to back slide into persecution. They start blowing shit up in their neighborhoods and someone is going to take it into their own hands even if it isn't officially government sanctioned.

[Illocust]

Also, just realized, if this keeps up its going to kill the narrative about society being safer without guns. All these European countries getting shot up pretty much disproved the point that you can stop mass shootings.

[Suthenboy]

Line just heard on TV: "Europe has very strict gun control laws. That isnt serving them very well."

[Illocust]

That's encouraging. What channel?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Huh, Germany getting some action lately, but not a lot of coverage in the news about it.

[Dennis, Constitutional Peasant]

""Germany's Muencher Abendzeitung reported that up to 15 people were killed in a shooting in a shopping mall in the southern city of Munich.""

That's a pretty fast update from "1"

[Illocust]

Shopping mall, injured are easy to count they come to you. The dead you got to look behind all the merchandise to find.

[egould310]

Gotta start somewhere.

[Rhywun]

WTF? I was just going to comment that "1 dead is not a spree".

[Dennis, Constitutional Peasant]

could be crossed wires. the Reuters story there is literally 2 sentences. Its longer now, though the only added info is mentions of recent ax-whacking & truck-killings etc.

[Lord Rollingpin]

'German Justice Minister Heiko Maas told Bild newspaper's Friday edition that there was "no reason to panic but it's clear that Germany remains a possible target".'
What's the German for Captain Obvious?

[Illocust]

The one dead also assumed ten injured, so it was a spree shooting at the time even if not a spree killing.

[Suthenboy]

Two reports I heard are 10 dead and 15 dead. No idea what kind of gun used. Gunman still on the loose.

[Illocust]

If he's still on the loose then the body count may actually be going up as time passes.

[Lord Rollingpin]

Does it not seem odd that all these cases seem to be coming along together.
The axe attacker, the knife attacker, now this.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

No shit.

[RBS]

OMG!!! I WAS IN MUNICH 8 YEARS AGO!!!!

/runs to facebook to make this about himself.

[Crusty Juggler]

Je suis RBS.

[Rhywun]

Je suis Ich bin RBS.

FTFY

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

*golf clap*

[Suthenboy]

Open borders for the win.

[bacon-magic]

Nice one sir.

[bacon-magic]

I was fully expecting several Trump Open Boarders Fascist articles today.

[Crusty Juggler]

Dank Je

[bacon-magic]

Cosmo bait

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

But nothing bad happens in Munich.

[Knarf the Yenrab]

No doubt a right-wing critic of Merkel's immigration policy who snapped.

[Homple]

Anything going on in the universe today besides Donald Trump?

Isn't there a press release from some global warmers for the science reporter to copy/paste or something? Political upheavals in places like Turkey?

[Dennis, Constitutional Peasant]

They write stories about Hillary too, you know.

/Hugh

[Suthenboy]

I heard rumors that there is a minor kerfuffle in Munich.

Dont worry: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04.....f-history/

[Derp-o-Matic 5000]

If getting shot is the right side of history, I'm ready to embrace my inner Neanderthal.

[Zeb]

I'd say the problems are a lot more about the generous welfare state, a stupid ideal of "multiculturalism" and lack of punishment for people who do terrible things than open borders. And a disarmed and heavily pussified native populace.

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

A new Star Trek movie is out, some cop was aiming for the autistic kid instead of the autistic kid's helper, some other cop is racist, and Russia be spyin'.

But this is primarily an American politics blog, and last night was a big deal for one American political party. So, y'know, time for thinkpieces and reactions.

[Suthenboy]

"...time for thinkpieces..."

I am still waiting.

[Knarf the Yenrab]

Everyone's excited about which 60-something white male Clinton will name to be her running mate and who will subsequently tower over her in all of their joint photo appearances.

Alternatively, the Democrats may just choose to lock Hillary in a vault and replace her with a first-gen replicant that can only respond to questions with questions of its own. To no one's surprise, voters prefer the replicant.

[This Machine]

+1 turtle on its back

[Playa Manhattan.]

According to twitter, second shooting in metro station in Munich.

[JWW]

Heh, and Hillary proposes a god damned Constitutional Amendment making it actually illegal to criticize her!!

Checkmate assholes.

[nanban]

when silence is a good medicine anna university grace marks
anna university grace marks

[nanban]

protect and safe all speech anna university grace marks
anna university grace marks