Free Speech

What's the Best Way To Protect Free Speech? Ken White and Greg Lukianoff Debate Cancel Culture

Is freedom of speech best upheld by law or by culture?

|

Even as debates over cancel culture have swept the nation, free speech defenders have disagreed about what, exactly, cancel culture is, and what it means for freedom of speech. In many ways, these disagreements represent differences of opinion about how best to protect and uphold true freedom of speech. 

And what better way to deal with questions about free speech than with a debate? Ken White is an attorney, a co-host of All the President's Lawyers, and a frequent commenter on issues of speech and law. Greg Lukianoff is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit whose mission is to "defend and sustain the individual rights of students and faculty members at America's colleges and universities." In the following exchange, the pair debate the resolution: Free speech law is the best defense against cancel culture.

PRO

Ken White: Protect Free Speech Norms With Free Speech Rights 

This is a golden age for free speech in America.

For more than a generation, the United States Supreme Court has reliably protected unpopular speech from government sanction. The Court's staunch defense of the First Amendment is remarkable because it has transcended political partisanship and upheld speech that offends everyone, including the powerful. 

In overturning flag burning laws, the Court protected (literally) incendiary speech that remains intolerable to many Americans. Years later, in upholding the right of Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of servicemen with vile homophobic insults, the Court aggrieved both the left and the right, permitting violation of norms of veneration of the military and against hate speech. The Court has protected scatological and humiliating ridicule of public figures and overturned laws purporting to bar "disparaging" or "immoral or scandalous" trademarks, firmly establishing that offensive speech is free speech. 

Crucially, the Court has repeatedly rebuked demands that it create new First Amendment exceptions based on the tastes of the moment. Instead, it has adhered to a select, narrowly defined list of historical exceptions, rejecting efforts to create a general "balancing test" that would determine whether speech is protected by an ad hoc weighing of its value and harm. The Court's defense of free speech is not perfect—students and public employees have seen some narrowing of rights—but it is unprecedented in American history, and in sharp contrast to the Court's halfhearted defense of Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights.  

Moreover, Congress—typically not a reliable defender of rights—has contributed meaningfully to our freedom to speak without fear of legal retaliation. For decades, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has made online discourse feasible by protecting websites from lawsuits based on the speech of visiting commenters and users. The SPEECH Act, enacted in 2010, protects us from libel tourism by making foreign defamation judgments unenforceable in the United States unless they comply with our robust free speech protections

Of course, rights are enforced by courts, which can make them more theoretical than actual. Access to justice is inconsistent, and the litigation process is hideously expensive and burdensome. But we've witnessed an explosion of First Amendment advocacy groups from every part of the political spectrum willing to vindicate Americans' rights—including the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.  

Yet gloom and despair dominate public discourse about free speech. We're told that free speech is in decline, under siege, subjected to constant threats. 

It's true that the First Amendment is constantly under attack and requires ongoing protection from legal assault from all sides. But the prevailing narrative isn't about official threats to speech—that is, threats involving state action that would violate the First Amendment. Instead, we're consumed with a debate about free speech culture—a disagreement about whether some speech is impermissibly threatened by other speech. That's "cancel culture": the notion that some people's exercise of their rights to free speech and free association impedes others in exercising those rights. It's a clash of norms, not of laws.

The notion that free speech norms impact free speech rights is not new. The legal system won't reliably protect rights unless the culture values them. Consider how our unreflective "law and order" culture has degraded Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. Judge Billings Learned Hand articulated it perfectly in his "Spirit of Liberty" speech in 1944: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." The project of cultivating a cultural respect for free speech is completely legitimate.

How do we protect free speech norms? With our free speech rights, grounded in the rule of law. Cancel culture and denunciation of cancel culture are competing norms in the protected marketplace of ideas. You can't burn down the marketplace in order to save it. Efforts to use state force to tamper with the marketplace to sort "valid" criticism from "invalid" cancellation inevitably result in less free speech, not more. 

Consider ongoing efforts to use punitive laws to stop the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, which put a government thumb on the scales by declaring that some forms of free speech and free association are an impermissible way to protest. Or consider how quickly J.K. Rowling, a very wealthy person who styles herself a victim of cancel culture because of the reactions to her comments about transgender people, uses threats of legal action under the U.K.'s regrettable defamation laws to force retractions and apologies from critics, nominally in service of some right to speak without "unfair" criticism. You can't win real free speech with censorship.

So what does it mean to use legal norms to protect cultural norms?

The law matters.

It's common for people criticizing cancel culture to say "we're not talking about law, we're talking about culture and behavior." Sure. But knowledge is power, and ignorance is poisonous. 

Dialogue about free speech—including about free speech culture—is often shot through with misunderstandings and disinformation about our legal rights. For instance, the debate over how social media platforms should be moderating unpopular speech is dominated by propaganda and gibberish about Section 230. That's bad for culture and civic society, because you can't effectively rely on or defend a right you don't understand. 

Debates about free speech need not be limited to the law, but they should not mislead about the law. For example, when FIRE criticizes private universities for censorious policies, they take pains to point out that private schools are not bound by the First Amendment but should be bound by their promises of free exchange of ideas. That approach combines robust discourse about culture with accurate information about rights.

"The culture of free speech" is political; act accordingly.

Many people who are concerned with cancel culture are acting in good faith and not trying to push a political agenda. But some people are. Cancel culture —like any somewhat useful descriptive term—is cynically used to mean "things I don't like" and "liberals suck." Take our president:

The problem isn't just that this reflects a completely unprincipled definition of cancel culture. The bigger problem is that the president (and many other politicians) decry cancel culture while wallowing in it by seeking to inflict social and economic consequences against speakers they don't like.

In fact, I respectfully submit that most complaining about cancel culture is insincere griping meant to convey "liberals are bad." This is part of a general political effort to associate free speech with the right and censorship with the left. (That effort isn't just historically laughable and demonstrably untrue, it's terribly shortsighted and counterproductive if your goal is to sell young people on free speech culture.) As a result, when people of good faith, like my friend Greg Lukianoff, talk about cancel culture, they're viewed with skepticism. They cannot pretend that their arguments exist in a vacuum; they exist in a culture of relentless, unprincipled misuse of the phrase. 

So what can they do? They can use the rigor you would associate with legal norms. They can explain their terms, debate principled definitions of what is objectionable, and call out political misuse of the concept, so that their discourse can't be mistaken for mere partisanship. That brings us to the next way legal norms can inform this debate: 

Specifics are better than generalities.

The debate over cancel culture is best conducted using specific examples, as you would in a legal argument, not broad generalities. 

There is, for instance, a fairly broad consensus that the firing of David Shor was unjust and contemptible. So why not say so explicitly? The now-famous Harper's magazine letter about cancel culture didn't. It relied, instead, on somewhat vague allusions to cases, and on general criticism of "intolerance of opposing views" and "a vogue for public shaming and ostracism"––terms that are very susceptible to exactly the sort of cynical political misuse I'm talking about. It should not have shocked the authors that their audience, steeped in our current political culture, read it as a partisan wolf in principled sheep's clothing. Couching the debate in specific cases, like Shor's, will help as much as rigorous definitions. 

Take competing rights seriously.

The point of the law is to sort out competing claims of rights. Any debate over cancel culture must do so as well. The things decried as "cancellation" of free speech—public denunciations, calls for firings and boycotts, and so forth—are indisputably other people's free speech. Just as a legal argument won't persuade if it ignores the claims of the opposing party (well, unless it's a D.A. arguing), the cultural argument won't persuade if it amounts to shut up so I feel more comfortable talking. 

This is particularly true because cancel culture is used so flexibly to mean anything from demanding that someone be fired for saying something offensive (which might be a principled definition) to criticizing that person for saying it because doing so might be "mob action" that contributes to cancellation. Everyone's free speech rights are equal before the law. "There's no right not to be offended" is indisputably true, but so is "there's no right not to be criticized." These rights should be equal philosophically, too. People arguing that cancel culture is bad need to confront the fact that boycotts, group public condemnation, and even demands for firing are the sort of speech that comparatively obscure and powerless people have available to them. 

And finally, in legal advice I always give to clients:

Don't fall for grifters.

Like any Very Online debate, cancel culture is a bright flame attracting huckster moths, eager to gather money and attention by portraying themselves as its victims—just subscribe here to learn all about it! Exercise prudent skepticism.

Debating free speech values is good. A little legal rigor wouldn't hurt.

CON

Greg Lukianoff: Free Speech Culture Is Our Best Hope Against Cancel Culture 

Free speech culture is more important than the First Amendment. It's more important because free speech culture is what gave us the First Amendment in the 18th century. It's what kept free speech alive in the 19th century. It's what reinvigorated the First Amendment in the 20th century. It's what informs the First Amendment today—and it is what will decide if our current free speech protections will survive into the future.

The thinking that culture can be separated from the law is an odd sociological, let alone legal, theory, especially in a common law country. Indeed, the most important book in the history of freedom of speech, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, is primarily a philosophical, not legal, argument against a repressive/conformist culture. The same is true of the most important book on freedom of speech in the last 50 years, Jonathan Rauch's Kindly Inquisitors. And the greatest speech on the nature of a free society, Judge Billings Learned Hand's 1944 "Spirit of Liberty" speech, explicitly argues that culture trumps law: "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts," he said. "These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."

Indeed, the framers of the Constitution and the First Amendment itself were heavily influenced by the cultural norms of the mother country and by radical free speech advocates like John Lilburne. They also benefited from free thinkers like Montesquieu, Francis Bacon, John Locke, David Hume, and the colonial experience in which the press and individual free speech was essentially impossible to control. The Bill of Rights in many ways is a summary of cultural values of what had previously been called "free-born Englishmen." 

Popular Idioms and Free Speech Culture

What does free speech culture look like? Popular idioms—like "it's a free country"—are one good window into cultural values, and free speech values are not absent from our idioms. The folk wisdom of "to each his own," and "everyone's entitled to their own opinion" can be found all over First Amendment law and is mirrored in quotes, including my favorite in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943): "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much."

The sentiments "different strokes for different folks" and "who am I to judge?" find their legal analogs in cases including Cohen v. California's great line—"one man's vulgarity is another's lyric"—from 1971.

Notice, many idioms that were common when many of us were younger just don't have the same cultural force they used to have. Indeed, "sticks and stones" is regularly made fun of and misrepresented as being an incorrect folk notion rather than a mantra a free society teaches its children to help them deal with the burdens of everyday life. Free speech culture is a culture with a high tolerance for difference; a general presumption that, for most of us, our personal political opinions don't matter all that much for our day-to-day lives: "To each his own."

Free speech culture started to decline on college campuses in the mid-1980s, when campuses—whether they knew it or not—started adopting the idea of "repressive tolerance." This was the belief that free speech protection for minority opinions did not go far enough. Instead, campus authorities should censor hateful speech. Of course, on campus, their political ideology was entirely dominant, giving them a skewed view of the importance of free speech for minority opinions in the off-campus world.

Luckily, lawyers and judges largely educated before the rise of repressive tolerance norms continued to zealously protect it. However, we kid ourselves if we believe our legal freedoms will survive if our free speech culture is undermined by the institutions entrusted to educate future citizens, leaders, lawyers, and judges.

The Necessary Differences Between Culture and Law  

The idea of free speech culture will always be frustrating to lawyers because it doesn't have the specificity of law. Of course, free speech law is more specific than free speech culture; law is about rules, while culture is about norms. That free speech culture is less specific than law does not make it less powerful. As Charles Davenant had mythological King Thoas observe in 1677's Circe, there is great power in "Custom, that unwritten Law, By which the People keep, even Kings in awe." 

Oddly, some lawyers think of the law as something barely influenced by culture. But what about, for example, gay marriage? It only became legal after the culture accepted its legitimacy—an unthinkable development 50 years ago.

What does free speech culture look like? Free speech culture means high tolerance for difference. It means a general presumption that, for most of us, our personal political opinions don't matter all that much for our day-to-day jobs: That those with "terrible" opinions can still be amazing lawyers, artists, scientists, and accountants, and people with "good" opinions are not necessarily good at anything—indeed, they might be a little too conventional to contribute interesting things to art, science, or social innovation. 

The idea that bad people can be beneficial to society, and good people might be useless, is something that seems heretical in the context of cancel culture, which deems nasty things said in tweets 10 years ago relevant. 

Cancel Culture Is Unchecked Instinct. Free Speech Culture Must Be Learned.

Cancel culture comes from our natural instinct to silence dissent. The desire for compliance and conformity is reflected in most of human history. It's deeply ingrained in all of us. We did not have to learn to censor others, we had to learn to be tolerant of nonconformity. We had to learn not to burn the heretic.

Cancel culture is a useful term for delineating the social media era expression of the ancient desire for conformity. Pervasive social media means that things that might have previously been ignored––angry letters sent to The New York Times––are now potentially successful efforts to mobilize a sufficient number of people to ruin lives. Early attempts to describe the new phenomena are instructive, including my own short book Freedom From Speech (2014), the documentary Can We Take a Joke? (2015), and Jon Ronson's So You've Been Publicly Shamed (2015).

So how would I define cancel culture? Broadly and tentatively, of course. How about: 

"Cancel culture" is a term to refer to a relatively recent (post-2013) uptick in—and success of—ideologically driven efforts to get individuals fired or otherwise cast out of acceptable society for non-conforming speech or actions, including speech that would have once been considered trivial, private, or unrelated to someone's job. It is tightly related to the rise in social media, which allows for unparalleled collective policing of ideological norms, and the comparative ease of creating online "outrage mobs." 

Cancel culture is in my view, the progeny of campus "callout culture" that Jonathan Haidt and I explore in our book The Coddling of the American Mind (2019). Some characteristics of campus callout culture looks similar to cancel culture, including: 1) the conflation of expressions of opinion with physical violence, 2) the use of ad hominem rhetorical tactics which delegitimize the person and soften or ignore the substance of the argument), 3) the elimination of concern for the intent of targeted speech, relying solely on its claimed effect, 4) a high reliance on guilt by association and theories of "moral pollution" (a concept well explained by my colleague Pamela Paresky), and 5) appeals to authority to punish or remove the targeted speaker (also known as moral dependency). None of these criteria are required to be part of cancel culture, but some or all of these characteristics often are. 

Cancel culture often relies on speech that is already unprotected under First Amendment law, including threats of bodily harm and outright harassment. In other cases, cancel culture demands behavior from others that would be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. While, for example, you're absolutely free to advocate for less free speech by, for example, demanding a professor be fired for their expression, if a public university were to act on those demands it would violate the law, plain and simple. 

The forces of conformity are very strong in humans, and we've given them superpowers in recent days. It must be opposed. Diversity of opinion, the right to individual conscience, the power of thought experimentation and devil's advocacy are important for a free and innovative society.

Free Speech Culture Without Free Speech Law vs. Free Speech Law Without Free Speech Culture

What does a culture look like that has a strong free speech culture, but not favorable law? France in the 18th century is a good example. It was one of the greatest philosophical periods in human history. It featured thinkers like Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Émilie du Châtelet, as well as salons, like those of Baron d'Holbach, attended by thinkers like David Hume, Adam Smith, and Benjamin Franklin. Sometimes these thinkers and writers had to flee France to avoid arrest, and sometimes they were arrested, but the cultural norm of open discussion was so strong they kept writing and innovating and challenging norms and beliefs.

And what does a country look like that has no free speech culture, but good free speech law? Consider the following guarantees of free speech, from other countries' constitutions: 

  • "Everyone shall be guaranteed freedom of thought and speech…"
  • "Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association."
  • "Everyone has the right to express and disseminate his/her thoughts and opinions by speech, in writing or in pictures or through other media, individually or collectively."

Each of these sounds similar to our own First Amendment's speech promise. And if you want to know how they are working out, you can visit Russia, North Korea, and Turkey, respectively. 

And while these are stark examples, free speech is even under threat in the nominally "free world," including in Spain, Britain, and France, where people have been imprisoned for rap lyrics saying the wrong thing, reading the wrong thing, or having the wrong reaction in a Facebook post. 

That's where we could be headed if we don't remember that free speech culture is more important than free speech law. A free speech culture can exist without protective law, but not the other way around—at least not for very long.

Ken White Responds

True Free Speech Defenders Must Resist Making Free Speech a Partisan Issue 

My friend Greg Lukianoff is passionate about free speech, as befits someone who has fought so effectively for it. We have few legal disputes about the scope of the First Amendment. Moreover, as a matter of taste, our views about cancel culture are often consistent—I, too, think that demands that people suffer economic consequences for disfavored speech are often counterproductive and destructive to civic society. But my view of the current public dialogue about free speech culture is substantially more cynical than his, and there we differ. 

Greg asserts that free speech culture "gave us the First Amendment in the 18th century" and "kept free speech alive." That culture has always been more aspirational than actual. The free speech culture that produced the First Amendment also promptly produced the Alien and Sedition Acts. The dawn of the modern age and mass media gave us broad justifications for censorship of political speech, cultural repression, and suppression of minority views and values

Though Americans support free speech in the abstract, that support often breaks down when we are confronted with specific examples of speech we don't like. The history of the First Amendment is a history of Americans struggling mightily against other Americans trying to silence them. If free speech is in our national DNA, so is censorship.

That's a fundamental flaw in the current popular cancel culture narrative. It suggests, expressly or implicitly, that America enjoyed some golden age of cultural tolerance for speech. But did we? Did we really? If so, when was it? I submit that there was never such an age, and that unpopular views have always met with social and economic repercussions in America. 

We can strive to do better, but we shouldn't distort history by claiming that people now are more censorious than they were before. We can argue, for instance, that Americans should be able to express disapproval of gay marriage without losing their jobs—but that shouldn't lead us to suggest that America was previously a safe place to express pro-gay views, when it manifestly was not

Why does this matter? It matters because the loudest voices condemning cancel culture in America are not people of good faith like Greg. The loudest voices are using the issue as a cynical political wedge from the right to attack the left

They're the same voices who try to get people fired for speech when that speech is offensive to them, when that speech comes from the left. The "golden era" concept—the suggestion that there was a better time for social tolerance of speech in America, and it's now been spoiled by millennials and progressives—is not just wrong, it's nakedly partisan, and it's part of the same effort to make free speech culture into a political weapon.   

Making free speech a partisan issue is foolhardy, and true free speech defenders must resist it. The First Amendment—and free speech culture more broadly—rely on a sometimes tenuous bargain. The bargain is this: We all agree not to use the power of the state to punish speech that makes us mad, and instead to use the power of the marketplace of ideas to fight it. That deal convinces Americans to refrain, at least some of the time, from state censorship of some truly despicable and upsetting speech

But what if we now tell Americans that yes, they have the marketplace of ideas, they have the ability to respond to speech they hate with "more speech"—but that more speech shouldn't be too harsh? What if we tell them—and especially young people, who tend to be far more left-leaning—that we should see harsh responses to ugly speech as "liberal" and mild responses as "conservative"? Their natural reaction may be to see the free speech "deal" as a partisan sham, a rationalization for preferring the speech and feelings of one group over the other. It's hard to imagine a better way to lose an entire generation's commitment to free speech values.

To be taken seriously, cancel culture critiques must be doggedly nonpartisan and overtly hostile to political misuse. They must also strive for evenhandedness. Critics shouldn't impose norms on "more speech" that they don't impose on the speech it's rebutting. 

So, for instance, if you're concerned that widespread condemnation of a professor's column chills speech, you might ask at the same time whether the professor's description of student activists as a "terrorist organization" was also chilling. More speech is free speech, entitled to the same legal and cultural protection as the speech to which it responds. A philosophy that criticizes one to the exclusion of the other will not convince Americans.

Greg Lukianoff Responds

Free Speech Culture Is What Makes Free Speech Law Possible

Ken White and I are both great admirers of American First Amendment law. I believe it's the best body of thought on how to have freedom of speech in the real world. Where Ken and I differ is that I believe free speech culture and law are (almost) inextricable. We interpret law through the lens of culture, and culture is what makes our law possible and effective. The list of countries that have good free speech laws on the books, but have no free speech because they utterly lack a free speech culture, is long.

We are extremely lucky that our Supreme Court is populated by attorneys educated or coming up during the 1970s, arguably the best decade for both free speech culture on campus and free speech law. However, I've seen a stark decline in student respect for, or understanding of, speech norms over the past decade, and I believe this will inevitably lead to an eventual decline in law. 

As I've recounted countless times, from 2001 to about 2012, the students were the best constituency for free speech on campus. Then, in the 2013–14 school year, students started to demand new campus speech codes and disinvitations, claiming that the presence of people with certain views was medically harmful. Conservatives had railed against campus narrow mindedness for years, but starting in 2014, more and more liberals and left-of-center people grew concerned about the trend, as well. As researchers would discover, the population hitting campuses around 2013–2014 were less tolerant of free speech.  

Because the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education works exclusively on campus, I saw this change in real time and on the ground—both figuratively and literally. In 2015, I filmed Nicholas Christakis when he was encircled by Yale students calling for him to lose his job. 

As more members of Generation Z hit the "real world," free speech norms like tolerance for political differences will erode. A 2020 Cato/YouGov survey found that 27 percent of Americans under 30 would support firing a business executive who personally donates to Joe Biden's campaign; 44 percent support firing a similar Donald Trump donor. 

Ken warned me about grifters, charlatans, and Trump tainting my argument. But this is the kind of guilt-by-association argument I am fighting: "Bad people make argument, therefore argument bad!" Never mind that I was speaking about this phenomenon years before anyone imagined a President Trump. Yes, Trump pointed out a rising intolerance on the left, but former President Barack Obama has also made similar arguments several times over, and continues to do so. 

So have former presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Ken is a friend who I love, admire, and respect, but I have to vent some frustration. I've seen a lot of hostility to the idea of free speech culture coming from people who defer to Ken's point of view. If Ken is concerned about free speech cynicism, he's fortuitously positioned to help stop it. 

So, I have some requests of Ken, but, more importantly, of his fans, and for many others.

Please don't be so quick to call people hypocrites.

Not everybody who cares about freedom of speech is as well-versed in its nuances as Ken and me. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and even expect people to be inconsistent, because that's part of human nature. Sometimes free speech defenders can disagree about what should be protected, may still be learning, or just made a bad call once. If the price of chiming in to say "I believe in free speech" is to be called out as a presumptive hypocrite, why wouldn't people become cynical?

Welcome even temporary allies.

If someone usually disagrees with you, but actually agrees with you on a particular free speech incident, welcome their help rather than fixate on what you consider to be their previous hypocrisy (which sometimes isn't even there).

Stop lumping actual free speech advocates together with the predictable partisan pundits.

Jonathan Rauch, Nadine Strossen, and I and many others are people who actually work in this profession; Milo Yiannopoulos and Charlie Kirk, for example, are explicitly partisan and only care about free speech for ideological allies. In my experience, speech professionals are thoughtful and consistent, and should not be dragged down because grifters exist, as they have always existed. 

Do this first: Ask "how can I help this student or professor who is in trouble for his expression?"

Many people follow Ken's example by tweeting something about how people on the right "don't care about these cases—in your face, conservative!" But few realize what else he does: Send the cases our way and actually support our work. Be more like Ken and do more than dunk on your opponents: Spread the word, contact the school, and urge other influential people to join the pro–free speech side. 

Ken and I don't have to agree on the value of free speech culture. But when people are fostering contempt and cynicism about free speech it makes the job of actual free speech fighters, including both Ken and me, much harder. If we preoccupy ourselves with distancing ourselves from the "bad" folks, we will eventually cede free speech to the grifters. 

It's okay that people deemed "bad" by internet mobs agree with me about cancel culture. Indeed, I would like more people to come out against cancel culture; most Americans are against it but may be afraid to say so. I may be greedy, but I'd like both strong free speech law and a strong culture. 

Therefore, I would like more people to return to the idioms of a free society: How about "everyone's entitled to their own opinion," "it's a free country," "address the argument, not the person," and maybe a new one: "Even people I hate have to make a living."

Advertisement

NEXT: Lex Loci Delicti, not Praetor Peregrinus

Free Speech Cancel Culture Law Culture

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

314 responses to “What's the Best Way To Protect Free Speech? Ken White and Greg Lukianoff Debate Cancel Culture

  1. Obviously the law follows culture if it wants to maintain any sort of respect but I must say the Supreme Court has been pretty firm on the Free Speech issue. Not that anybody has any respect for the Supreme Court, and how long do they expect their “because I say so” reasoning to hold off the barbarian hordes when they’ve done so much to bring this disrespect on themselves? The more laws you’ve got, the more opportunities you’ve got for disagreement on the fairness and wisdom of the laws and the more you have people deciding that the law is unworthy of respect, it’s just a matter of time until the foundational pillars are eroded away. It’s not enough that the Supreme Court holds firm on there being no “hate speech” exception to the principle of Free Speech, the society and culture as a whole has to hold to the “I may not agree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” ethos, and unfortunately short-sighted people who see a temporary advantage in denying this proposition – much as someone burning the furniture to take the chill off or eating the seed corn for a little snack – they’re going to miss it when it’s gone and their enemies turn the new rules against them.

    1. Your points are what idiots like White don’t understand or pretend not to understand so they can shill for the tech companies and media. Government is not some alien being inflicted on society. Republican government is ultimately reflective of the society it governs. If society no longer values free speech and embraces a culture where anyone who says anything deemed unacceptable by the mob can and will have their lives ruined, government will no longer care about free speech. Moreover, if society doesn’t care about free speech, it wouldn’t matter if government did anyway.

      1. Did you get that idea from the guy who said “The legal system won’t reliably protect rights unless the culture values them”?

        1. Because his later statements downplaying and defending the counter culture means he either doesn’t fully understand the implication of that statement or is pretending not to. White is saying that the government can’t protect free speech but then turning around and refusing to condemn the forces in society who are threatening free speech. That statement doesn’t fit with his larger position.

          1. Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!

            1. Hi evry one……..Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page. … Click For Full Details.

          2. You’re using the same charged language he talks about. Nobody is threatening free speech. They are responding to ideas with more ideas. If anyone actually were calling for government enforcement of speech norms, nobody would take them seriously.

            Can’t say this better:

            I respectfully submit that most complaining about cancel culture is insincere griping meant to convey “liberals are bad.” This is part of a general political effort to associate free speech with the right and censorship with the left.

            1. Censorship IS on the left.

              It’s not the Right claiming “hate speech isn’t free speech” and then refusing to define what hate speech is.

              1. Censorship IS on the RIGHT as well, with people claiming, for example, that if Reason.com’s right to remove comments is taken away from Reason, and Reason is FORCED to publish extremely hateful and racist comments, against their will… And then TONS of people BOYCOTT Reason as a result… Then the solution is MORE force! Boycotts shall be FORCED to end, and people will be FORCED to buy Reason’s magazines, and view their advertisers!!!

                “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
                Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)
                (Etc.)
                See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/#comments

                1. So theoretical censorship in your eyes is the same as literal censorship? Makes sense.

                  1. Fascist speech-controller wants to FORCE people to buy Reason Magazines, to make they’s speech fascism work right! And SAYS so! Then skitters away from the argument with mealy-mouthed bullshit!

                    Arrogant people can NEVER admit that they are WRONG! Not factually, not ethically, not morally, not spiritually! They are NEVER wrong, in their own minds!

                    1. What in the blue hell are you going on about here?

                      That I didn’t take your hypothetical seriously when we have actual real-world examples available now?

                      Try being less insane for a little while, sparky.

                    2. damikesc
                      June.24.2020 at 10:02 am
                      I did see a suggestion that they should add a quick line to Section 230 that the censorship cannot be for speech that would be legal under the US Constitution. Seems like an exceptionally fair suggestion.

                      (This is Damikesc getting theoretical first. Damikesc thinks it will be simple, easy, and unbiased, to just determine if speech is “legal under the US Constitution” for the purposes of regulating chat-room speech, etc.)

                      Now below, I get theoretical in return!)

                      SQRLSY One
                      June.24.2020 at 10:33 am
                      I see a problem with this… Suppose that the judges (after long-drawn-out fighting and lots of money spent) determine that totally outright, nasty racism (in comments) is “Constitutional”. Reason.com is then suddenly SWAMPED with racist comments that they can NOT remove! SOME of the racist comments will even be “false flags” comments by leftist mobs! For the explicit purpose of pissing off SOOO many people, that they will boycott Reason.com, the Reason magazine hardcopy, and all who advertise on Reason web site or magazine! Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts? Boycotts that were CREATED by your meddling in the first place?

                      Try and THINK IT THROUGH on unwanted side effects!!!

                      damikesc
                      June.24.2020 at 11:11 am
                      “I see a problem with this… Suppose that the judges (after long-drawn-out fighting and lots of money spent) determine that totally outright, nasty racism (in comments) is “Constitutional”.”

                      Which, mind you, it undoubtedly is.

                      “Reason.com is then suddenly SWAMPED with racist comments that they can NOT remove! SOME of the racist comments will even be “false flags” comments by leftist mobs!”

                      So be it. Sounds rough.
                      (Quote Damikesc)

                      Damikesc then goes on to bless using the Government Almighty’s boots to stomp down on boycotters who punish Reason for Reason being FORCED to publish their (racists’) stupid and-or racist comments! We will be FORCED to support Reason!

                      THAT is what in the blue hell is going on, you “perfect” LIAR who will NEVER admit to being wrong! Boycotts DO happen, and they are a VERY realistic result of YOUR style of fascism!

                    3. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

                      For more details…… Cash Mony System

                2. This is lazy, “oh yeah? you do it too” thinking. it does nothing to resolve the problem. Apparently you feel you benefit from cancel culture.

              2. It’s not the Right claiming “hate speech isn’t free speech” and then refusing to define what hate speech is.

                No, but it is the right claiming that Colin Kaepernick should be fired for kneeling during the anthem. And it is the right supporting SLAPP suits by Republican politicians. And lustily cheering Trump on when he talks about punishing media and social media companies for their speech.

                1. Kaep was fired for being a shitty QB who wouldn’t accept market value for his services.
                  Kneeling was his solution to being bad at his job and pouting

                2. Ahh, so speech is bad. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

                  An employee should not be permitted to make an ass of himself on his boss’s dime. Hardly a controversial stance. And the media IS utter bullshit and should be called out on a minute-by-minute basis.

                  1. Now that the football people changed their mind, are you done fixating on the scary black man engaging in a different flag worship ritual than you?

                    1. I’d rather see them focus on a player who was competent. Colin did lose his job to Blaine Gabbert, for fuck’s sake.

                      And they can do what they wish. I will just not watch. The NBA and MLB are both comfortably below where they were last year (which wasn’t exactly a stellar year) and NFL is likely to join them.

                      I just think we need to do some REAL intense investigations on concussions in football. If the NFL has to tie to save players’ lives, c’est la vie.

            2. In the past I probably would have agreed. But it seems like something is happening now that is a real danger to free expression. And we’re seeing a lot of people from the left starting to call this shit out too. I don’t think it’s just griping about the left anymore.
              I hope I’m wrong.

        2. Tony, FYI, if you have NOT seen this, it is highly relevant…

          (Short version up top).
          Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said, ‘The State must follow, and not lead, the character and progress of the citizen.’

          Here is the full-blown quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
          ‘Republics abound in young civilians who believe that the laws make the city, that grave modifications of the policy and modes of living and employments of the population, that commerce, education and religion may be voted in or out; and that any measure, though it were absurd, may be imposed on a people if only you can get sufficient voices to make it a law. But the wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand which perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow and not lead the character and progress of the citizen; that the form of government which prevails is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a memorandum.’

          Another relevant Emerson quote:
          “All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves.”
          So anyway, suppose that Government Almighty goes too far, and mandates no-meat diets, which many people disagree with, just like the War on Drugs today…
          Then there will be underground, makeshift, amateurish animal-killing-and-butchering shops, where the animals will be treated far less humanely than they are today! (Thank You Do-Gooders!!!)
          You will not be able to let your cat or dog wander through the bushes in your own back yard, for fear of meat-hungry lawbreaking pet-snatchers!
          (But, Meat-Hungry Lawbreaking Pet-Snatchers would make an MOST EXCELLENT name for a garage band!)

          1. This is the argument I refer to when people try to claim that Jim Crow was somehow imposed on an unwilling cosmopolitan progressive Southern populace by malicious alien entities in the guise of local governments.

            1. You are right that Jim Crow laws probably mostly followed the culture when first imposed. However, they also prevented change along with the culture (or simply because of the economic interests of business owners). And that is the point people are making when they say that we should just have eliminated the racist laws and then let the culture sort itself out.

              1. We did get rid of the racist laws, no thanks to the locals.

                1. We didn’t get rid of racist laws, at least, not in their entirety. Democrats to this day are pushing for such laws.

                  California did, at least for a while, forbid racist laws, but now they are trying to bring them back.

      2. We also will eventually have judges who were taught that hate speech isn’t free speech. We will eventually lose all of our rights if the culture continues as it is.

      3. Do you still argue that business owners should be free to loudly and publicly declare they don’t want gay people shopping there, but that people are “economic terrorists” if they don’t shop there?

        ’cause if so, it’s kinda hard to take you seriously when you talk about valuing free speech.

        1. I never argued that. Mixing politics and business is a recipe for poverty. That is what I said. You should work on being less stupid

          1. So you deny it this time.

            Interesting. Last time you didn’t.

        2. Who has ever argued that?

          A business owner should be allowed to be a bigot if he/she so chooses. They will likely lose considerable business over it.

          1. John has. Multiple times. Last time I checked him on this he didn’t deny it. So it’s kind of funny he’s denying it now.

        3. That case was a disingenuous practice of targeted harassment by “activists”. The didn’t so happen come across that store asking to buy a cake. They knew who the store oner was and what he believed. There was no genuine harm on the part of the plaintiffs. The case should have been tossed.

      4. This is why considering the constitution as a ‘living document’ is the death of the republic.
        once you do away with the bedrock of the constitution in concert with the amendment process – which i would say the ‘living document’ approach does – the constitution is an afterthought.
        I believe and lament that the US is already too far down this road to be able to correct course… which is why team RED is still better than team BLUE in my eyes. At least with team RED appointees to the court the process is potentially slowed. But then to quote hillary: ” what difference at this point does it make…. “

        1. how the heck did my comment get here??!!

      5. test… to see where this ends up

      6. You said “if society no longer values free speech” but, seriously, when has society valued free speech more than today? I mean that sincerely, I truly believe that society values free speech more today than at any time in history, by a wide margin.

    2. Yeah, this isn’t an either/or. You need both. We have quite good legal speech protections in the US in most areas (a few problems with commercial and political regulations in my opinion). But without it being a cultural value as well, and without reasonable tolerance of opinions you disagree with as a cultural value, the law can only do so much and is likely to be eroded over time.
      It’s a tricky situation and I don’t know what you do, though. I think you just have to keep trying to convince people that tolerance and freedom are good things. Government intervention against the big tech companies would not improve things, in my opinion, outside of cases where it can be shown they have violated their contractual obligations with users or customers.

    3. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started………► Click For Detail.

    4. ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░  
      Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85$/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551$.pop over here this site…   Read more

    5. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.Click For Full Details.

    6. A good way to undermine our Constitutional freedoms for the long haul is to target our school children with lies about the founding of this great country. Get them to grow up despising America as evil & racist from its beginnings. This is what the so called 1619 Project aims to do, and it pushed by the NY Times & Oprah no less. It aims to make our school children falsely believe that America would not even exist except for slavery, and that protection of slavery was the reason for our Declaration of Independence – not true at all.

      Our acclaimed historians have already denounced the hateful 1619 Project. Don’t allow BLM or their leftist allies in our politicized education industry plant these pernicious lies in your children’s heads.

  2. Hey guys, I’ve got the answer to saving the economy. You want to know what it is? Well? Ok, here it is.
    https://thehill.com/policy/finance/510235-top-federal-reserve-official-says-us-needs-another-lockdown-to-save-economy

  3. Unironically, Ken turns free speech into a partisan issue in his very plea that free speech shouldn’t be a partisan issue. How dare those people on the right keep pointing out that the majority liberal media and universities are suppressing the speech of those they don’t like.

    Ken suffers from the same mental blindness a lot of people on the left do. They still believe they are living in the 90’s and can’t admit to themselves that the culture has moved on. Shitting on Christians and conservatives is no longer bravely standing up for the little guy against the man. Your the man now. Liberals control the majority of the levers of power socially, and it turns out all the principles they supported as the little guy completely evaporated once they gained power.

    Sorry, but at some point your going to have to look around and realize that three decades have passed since the conservatives where the threat you still believe them to be.

    1. You have to understand White is a small man. He, like most center left liberals, obtains a large measure of his personal self worth from the belief that because of his politics he is one of the good people engaged in the struggle against the “bad conservatives” and forces of intolerance. So, for White to do what you are talking about, means admitting that he never really was involved in some great struggle against the forces of intolerance. Instead, he is just a partisan with reasonable differences from other Americans. Worse, it also requires admitting that his own side isn’t all good and in fact might be a bigger threat than those he has been fighting.

      People like White, because they are small people who latch onto petty things for meaning in their lives, can never admit such a thing. Doing so requires a level of maturity, confidence, and most importantly self awareness and honesty that White does not posses.

      1. While it might be fun to poke a thumb in White’s eye about how he’s become the very thing he hated, I’m going to have to disagree.

        Remember how people on this forum like to bitch about how if a republican dog catcher says asphalt is black, CNN will run 24 hour coverage on how racist all republicans are? There is a reason that happens. Humans are bad at processing news through social media.

        There is a base filter effect. If we see a tweet that agrees with our world view, we retweet it, sharing it with all our followers. If we see one that doesn’t, we either ignore it or look through the comments for the one person that makes a persuasive argument for why the tweet can be ignored and retweet that argument to all our followers. Now multiply that by millions of liberals, all in one place reinforcing each other.

        Ken doesn’t realize that the times have changed because he has millions of people shifting through local events to give him a steady thread of “conservatives are the true oppressors” tweets. His brain doesn’t pick up on the fact that one tweet was from Louisiana two years ago and one was from a small town of ten people in Canada a week ago. He just gets a steady stream of conservatives are bad without context and doesn’t put together that without social media none of these incidents would have ever made national news because they are so rare and effect so few people.

        1. I think you accurately describe his thinking. But what you see as being misinformed, I see as willful ignorance. The truth is not hard to find or see. White just chooses not to see it. He does that because seeing it requires admitting the truths I describe above.

          1. I don’t know. The truth is pretty hard to find a lot of the time. Or at least complete truth.

            1. Zeb is correct. Its why diversity in fact checkers is so important. People don’t even think to look into narratives that they agree with. The truth is often buried multiple links deep or in very different parts of the web. If you agree with what you are being told on the face, most people have zero motivation to go through the effort to find out what they are being told is wrong. Ken’s human. He doesn’t have the motivation to undermine his whole world view. That doesn’t make him particularly ignorant, just normal.

          2. it also accurately describes the comment section at Ars Technica… as well as almost every other place comments are allowed… 🙁

    2. Liberals control the levers of power socially except the government and religion levers. Not to mention the rightwing media industry that spends much of its time complaining all over the internet, radio, tv, and newspapers about how nobody will let it speak.

      1. Ah yes, that conservative power over the government. That’s why liberal get out the vote efforts where getting their charity status denied by the IRS a couple years back. Oh wait, maybe that was conservatives. Hmmmm, well certainly the last liberal president had a huge scandal centered around the FBI fabricating evidence to try and get him impeached? No wait, that was conservatives again.

        1. Do Donald Trump’s failures and embarrassments cause you guys to have a Donald Trump–shaped hole in your memory of what happened in 2016? Yes, rightwing conservatives control most of the federal government.

          Also the IRS never targeted rightwing groups for political purposes. Please google your ancient conspiracy bullshit before you soil a message board with falsehoods.

          1. “ Also the IRS never targeted rightwing groups for political purposes.”

            You effortlessly hand wave and gaslight with such ease. It’s almost sociopathic. Reminds me of an analysis I saw on Casey Anthony. It was on YouTube titled “There’s something about Casey…”. Fascinating.

          2. Lois Learner just admitted guilt on national tv and resigned over nothing eh? Seriously, the IRS came out and admitted they did it. Admitted that only conservative keywords were used for extra scrutiny and that they explicitly did not do extra scrutiny on liberal keywords such as “progressive”. Go read my bit earlier about how humans are bad at getting news through social media. The fact you didn’t know this happened is because of the screening effect I described.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

            1. The part I find most fascinating about Lerner and other Obama administration scandals is the constant disappearance of real evidence. It’s almost like they know that they can commit a crime, hide it for a few years, and disappear the evidence before anyone knows a crime has occurred. It happened with the IRS, Fast and Furious, Clinton…why hasn’t someone introduced a record keeping rule yet?

            2. I read the same thing. It wouldn’t have been wrong if the IRS had scrutinized conservative groups using keyword searches, but they didn’t target conservative groups alone. It’s all on that page. It was a made-up scandal that nonetheless amounted to a small victory for the whiny bitches on the right who have no ideas other than how mean liberals are to them.

              1. Yeah, they did. Prog groups were virtually immediately approved while conservatives ones…weren’t. For years.

                1. Maybe conservative groups should stop trying to cheat the tax system.

                  1. “There is a maxim in the law—justice too long delayed, is justice denied.” — Martin Luther King, Jr., in a December 1961 speech to the AFL-CIO titled “If the Negro Wins, Labor Wins”

                  2. I think it’s cute that you think liberal groups aren’t trying to cheat the tax system.

          3. The Comey investigation is proof that actual conservatives are not in charge of the government.

    3. Yeah Ken is full of TDS. He blocked me on Twitter for asking a simple question.

      He doesn’t care about free speech. He cares about punishing Trump and those who support him.

      Ken is wrong, clearly, in his arguments. The left is FULL of Cancel Culture warriors and he clearly ignores them. The left is FULL of anti-free speeches. The right is not either.

  4. First we have to clearly understand why we’re even having this discussion. Specifically, under what conditions could free speech be harmful to society such that it outweighs the benefits of free speech?

    The principle benefit of free speech it to expose lies and corruption. Not everyone is on the criminal payroll and the victims especially can expose the crime unless they are censored. This extends to the cancel culture whose agenda can not withstand the scrutiny of logic and science and must censor and criminalize it for their argument to carry the day.

    Similarly the harm from speech come when it is used to coerce. When people are compelled by lies, under the authority of truth, to act in the liars interests instead of their own they are being coerced.

    So free speech will be protected, to the benefit of society, when only coercion / lies are criminalized.

    Logically only people with corrupt intentions could disagree.

    1. Lol. The biggest liar here wants to criminalize lies.

      1. When has anyone demonstrated that I lied?

        Never.

        When bigots refuse to consider arguments supported by logic and science, they have not demonstrated a lie.

        You’re lying.

        1. You? Lie? When you said that the Holocaust never happened! You boot-licker-of-NAZIs you!

          1. Provide reference to the physical evidence that proves that anyone much less millions of Jews were gassed to death with cyanide in German prison camps during WW2.

            Zyklon B was an insecticide used with specific heating and ventilating equipment to delouse clothing and save lives by preventing typhus. There are photos of that equipment in small delousing chambers it was never in the supposed shower house / gas chambers. If you think it was, provide reference to the physical evidence.

            Coerced and paid testimony is not evidence much less physical evidence.

            You scaredy bigots are liars.

            1. Sane people with a grip on reality don’t deny history, as history is defined by a vast, vast majority of historians, with (in cases like this) boat-loads of evidence. No, historians and history aren’t perfect… Nothing (or hardly anything) is. But your denial of overwhelming consensus history shows some pretty severe paranoia… Everyone is out to “get you” and to trick you, right?
              I am doing a service to readers who aren’t familiar with your paranoia… Let all new (or newer) readers beware, much of what Rob Misek has to say, needs to be examined carefully!

              The Earth is actually flat, and the center of the Universe.
              A secret cabal of Jewish bankers is diabolically manipulating the world towards world-wide communism.
              Space aliens secretly comprise 10% of Earthings, and are twisting us and them towards the day when they will enslave and eat us all!
              The Earth is hollow, with a vast array of large, powerful beings living underneath us.
              Being part of a TINY-TINY elite of humans who know the “secret truth” is the other element of your serious whack… Paranoia, and “special elite knowledge”… The later is evidence of mania, of egomania… Some serious self-examination on your part, would be in order!

              You can show Rob Misek an endless parade of well-documented history books about the holocaust, interviews with a few survivors, and video of walking tours of holocaust museums and preserved genocide sites (gas chambers etc), photos of starved corpses stacked cordwood-style…
              And Rob Misek will “summarize” for you, saying,
              “OK, sure, I’ve heard that before! Ha!…
              ‘Mustache Man Bad’ hyped propaganda!”
              #Mustache_Man_Bad

              1. In short, you have no reference to physical evidence.

                1. Rob, this is the same sophist bullshit that Pedo Jeffy pulls. Essentially insisting on endless proof that the sky is blue or that water is wet.

                  So no, we’re not going to go to great lengths to relitigate the Holocsaust for you. Just like I’m not going to go prove the moon landing took place either.

                  You’re a kook, and an anti Semite.

                  1. You’re the dipshits that keep bringing it up and are too bigoted to consider the evidence.

                    Every time you refuse to consider or produce evidence, you lose the argument.

                    You’re the fucking look.

                    1. So, your theory is that all of the Jews in Europe before the Nazis what…hid?

                    2. Spread out.

                      Massive immigration to Palestine.

                      Collecting survivor payments all over the world.

                      There are more jews collecting Benefits than with attrition lived in German occupied Europe before the war.

                2. I have provided references to physical evidence. You refuse to accept them.

                  Yet you expect us to believe “your” evidence uncritically and absolutely.

                  Standards are great! They’re so great, why don’t we double them?

              2. In short, your tin-foil hat is BADLY in need of re-calibration!!!

            2. Before anyone here starts to offer up evidence, I’d like you to answer this question: If all that Zyklon B was needed for delousing, then why did they order it specifically without the odor that’s used to warn humans of its presence? Like natural gas, after all, Zyklon B is odorless, and it’s also far more poisonous to humans than it is to lice.

              I have a second question for you, too: why are you so determined to defend a government that did everything in its power to enslave its people? A government no different from Communists in that regard?

              1. That’s your argument, because they bought “unscented” it had to be to kill Jews?

                You clearly don’t understand logic.

                I value, speak and accept the truth. If it helps you out of your brainwashed bigoted delusions, you’re welcome.

                1. Logic is not on your side.

                  When you’re poisoning a room full of people which is easier to deal with? A room full of screaming people, trying. to do everything they can to get out of the room, and furthermore warning others outside that something horrible is happening? Or a room of docile people who cannot smell a thing, and then die?

                  Seriously, the Nazis had to special order unscented poison. What was the purpose of that? How was that important for killing lice? And why did they order enough of this to kill millions of people?

                  And why the heck are you defending a collectivist regime that was just as determined to enslave its own people, as it was to kill inconvenient ones?

                  1. Haha

                    That is your argument.

                    1. Indeed it is. Why else would Nazis take the extra effort to order scent-free Zyclon B — something that is significantly more dangerous to humans than to lice, and thus a safety hazard?

                      Particularly when it’s also an explosion hazard, but only well above levels where it’s poisonous to humans?

                  2. Maybe the dragging out and piling up and 24/7 outdoors burning of hundreds of thousands of dead bodies might be a clue for what’s coming, no?

                    Scent free. Haha

                    1. What proof do you have that this is going on right now?

                      When the Epoch Times made the claim that this kind of thing is going on in Wuhan as evidence that the Coronavirus is hitting the area harder than the Chinese government is claiming, they at least had the decency to provide evidence that the chemical composition of the air was changing, and that there was a significant increase in the number of burial urns being shipped into the area.

      2. He does it all the time, and says he doesn’t want to undermine 1A.

        Oh, and “The principle (sic) benefit of free speech it (sic) to expose lies and corruption.”? Nice false assertion, stormfag.

        1. What makes you believe that to be true?

          Your lie exposed.

          1. Please point to any founding document that supports your assertion. Or “scientifically prove” it.

            1. You yourself, and other bigots here only accuse me of lying. You have to science or logic to support your assertions. You just think the accusation of lying will demonize me. It doesn’t, but you think it does.

              Your own actions day in and day out here demonstrate that your priority is to expose lies and corruption. You just don’t do it very well.

              Logically, criminalizing lying will help.

              1. So you admit you’re trying to undermine the 1A.

              2. And my actions day in and day out show my priority is the rights of the individual, and not the collectivistic “greater good of society” that you espouse.

                You love the “well ordered society”. I know where that leads, and it isn’t more freedom.

                1. “And my actions day in and day out show my priority is the rights of the individual, and not the collectivistic “greater good of society” that you espouse.”

                  Good for you!!!

                  And I bet that you and I also agree on this: By focusing on the maximum practical personal, individual freedom, in the real world, we are ALSO maximizing, for the most part, the “greater good of society”!!! Minimizing Government Almighty FORCE (to what actually HAS to be done, like protecting freedoms from tyrants, foreign and domestic both) is what actually, really DOES maximize the “greater good of society”!!!

                  1. You must be incapable of logic.

                    Freedom doesn’t correlate with good.

                    Freedom can lead to bad or good.

                    So stop lying.

                    1. Sure, freedom doesn’t always correlate with good.

                      But government power always correlates with bad.

                    2. You too must be incapable of understanding logic.

                    3. I’m far better at it than you.

              3. The Holocaust is a proven event. There really is no question that it happened. I even have friends, now deceased that liberated two of the camps and saw first hand the horrors your fellow nazis inflicted on the prisoners there.

                But sure. Go ahead and die in this hill.

                1. There is zero physical evidence to support the holocaust narrative.

                  While the evidence that SOUNDLY refutes it is a crime to share in every nation where it allegedly occurred. This is thanks to bigoted liars like you who refuse to consider, even censoring the evidence with coercion.

                  That’s what you do.
                  That’s what you advocate.

                  It is appropriate to expose your corruption in a discussion about free speech.

                  1. You say there’s no physical evidence, but you strike me as the kind of person who will deny physical evidence, even if it’s right in front of you.

                    You strike me as the kind of guy who will gladly board the cattle cars, and who will happily show the grain collectors your wife’s hidden stash of grain when they have just emptied your pantry of the seed grain you still had in there.

                    Ha, who am I kidding? You’re hoping to be the person putting people on cattle cars, and going door to door to collect grain from starving people!

                    1. You strike me as the kind of cancel culture dipshit who thinks that providing Irrefutable evidence in an argument doesn’t matter.

                    2. I have seen irrefutable evidence. I wish I could find the link to it, but someone critical of a holocaust denier like yourself was sued for libel, and the evidence collected was very damning for the holocaust denier’s case.

                      While such evidence would persuade a normal person, I doubt it would influence you one bit.

                    3. Haha

                      How unfortunate for you.

                  2. Sure, there is zero physical evidence.

                    Except for the existence of the camps, there is zero evidence.

                    Except for the size of the deforestation of the area around Auschwitz, consistent with their methods of burning dead bodies, there is no evidence.

                    Except for the existence of both de-lousing chambers and gassing chambers, with levels of Zyclon B absorbed into the bricks, consistent for their respective purposes, there is no evidence.

                    Except for the existence of mass graves where bullets were used instead of gas, there is no evidence.

                    Except for the existence of journal entries by officers following orders, there is no evidence.

                    Except for the existence of documented orders consistent with the extermination of the Jews, there is no evidence.

                    Except for the existence of buildings clearly designed for the purpose of gassing and disposing of humans, there is no evidence.

                    Except for photographs of the dead and dying after Allied forces entered these camps, there is no evidence.

                    And all this ignores all the testimonies of the people involved — both Jew and non-Jew, both prisoner and non-prisoner, that is consistent with all the above evidence — nope, nothing to see here!

                    We know that none of this happened, because — gasp! — the Nazis decided to stop recording the death of every Jew after about 1943 — and furthermore, the possibility that they decided to destroy a lot of the documents involved (but not all — apparently, there was too much to destroy) is proof that the documents never existed! Ergo, the holocaust could not have happened!

                    Phew. I’m glad we have that cleared up. Nothing to see here, move along, we can now implement an all-powerful State that doesn’t respect freedom without any fear of oppression and death, whatsoever!

                    Yay, absence of evidence! We can now move on to show that the moon landing was a hoax, that 9/11 was an inside job (because, while aircraft fuel can’t melt steel, nothing holds up a building better than steel heated up a thousand degrees or so!), and Lee Harvy Oswald couldn’t have possibly shot JFK (because a Marine sharp-shooter with a grudge against Capitalism couldn’t have possibly taken such a shot, let alone two or three!).

                    Ah, there’s nothing an absence of evidence can do, is there?

                    1. I reviewed and soundly refuted evidence that you provided to support your argument. Zyklon b must be heated and gas chambers don’t have windows.

                      You REFUSE to review the evidence that refutes everything in the holocaust narrative.

                      By definition you are a bigot.

                      Examples of bigotry in a Sentence

                      “ a deeply ingrained bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments”

                      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry

                    2. “a deeply ingrained bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments”

                      Ah, so you are conceding that you are, indeed, a bigot — because I sure as heck can’t convince you to look at the counter-evidence to you claim that the holocaust didn’t really happen!

                    3. There’s something that’s bothering me about this conversation, and I just realized what it was:

                      You want us to consider your “evidence”. You are claiming that we haven’t at all considered it.

                      The fact is, though, we have considered your “evidence”. We have then gone on to reject it. Because we don’t accept your claims as evidence, after we have considered it, and thought about how it fits in with what we know about the holocaust, you then complain that we “haven’t considered” your evidence.

                      Yet you refuse to consider the evidence we attempt to present. You tirelessly rant on and on about “not being able to throw Zyklon B through a window” as if (1) it’s impossible to administer it through a window, and (2) as if that’s the only thing wrong about the evidence we have with the holocaust, and once that’s accepted, everything else falls apart.

                      And, come to think about it, you also act as if the holocaust is only about the Jews, when the fact is, the Jews only represent about half of the people systemically destroyed by the Nazis. The remaining half? Dissenters to the Nazi regime. No one tries to refute the destruction of this six million people. Why?

                      And if the Nazi Party can cause six million non-Jews to disappear, what’s so difficult to believe that they can cause six million Jews to disappear?

                      The evidence is there for anyone to investigate, and there are a lot of resources to do so. Yet you refuse to look at any of it.

                      Yet we’re the ones unwilling to consider evidence? Ha!

                    4. It is scientifically impossible to throw active zyklon b through a window into an ungrateful room and have it continue releasing cyanide.

                      Since that is the evidence you provided as how cyanide was introduced to the windowed shower house, and it is impossible, the whole cyanide narrative is refuted.

                      That’s not a problem for my argument but it soundly refutes yours.

                      The evidence is in Kollerstroms book which you refuse to review. You don’t even know what evidence is in the book.

                      Yes you are a bigot.

                    5. Into an unheated room

                    6. “In a heated room”

                      Yawn. The non-engineer is here to tell us what’s possible and what’s not.

                      “The evidence is in Kollerstroms book which you refuse to review. You don’t even know what evidence is in the book.”

                      Have you reviewed the sources I gave? Not just the Wikipedia article, mind you, but the works cited in that article? Have you reviewed the materials in the court case that I cited? Have you reviewed the books that were mentioned in the review of the book you suggest I read?

                      Can you honestly say you know, one way or the other, what evidence there is for the holocaust, without reading these books? Or are you content with reading only this one book, and insist that this is all you need?

                      Incidentally, I’ve probably already seen the arguments that you refer to in the book. The website I’ve tried to find a link to was organized specifically to argue against holocaust denier claims — and it provided hard evidence to do so, as well.

    2. “…So free speech will be protected, to the benefit of society, when only coercion / lies are criminalized…”

      Hey, scumbag bigot, tell us again how those were just de-lousing operations, but your buds, the Nazis, just couldn’t get the dose right!

      1. The things you find in the YouTube rabbit hole:

        The I Was Not a Nazi Polka

        And yes, that’s John Denver in the middle.

    3. The principle benefit of free speech it to expose lies and corruption.

      Food, shelter, clothing, security, personal fulfillment? Fuck that nonsense, we learned to talk so we could expose lies and corruption! That explains why when Kat Beech signed to Washoe that she had a miscarriage, everyone was stunned when Washoe replied “I feel sorry for your loss, but you’re better as a woman for it. Reproduction is the slavery by which the partriarchy sustains itself.”

      1. The topic is free speech, dipshit.

        You’re referring to speech in general which is off topic.

        1. ^What you say when you believe that there’s speech that shouldn’t be protected but haven’t realized that you can’t distinguish one from the other^

          1. Give an example.

            1. ROFLMAO!

              “I can’t breathe.”

              1. That’s ok with Rob, as long as they’re Jewish. Except it will never have happened.

                1. Liar.

            2. Seriously, you said the priniciple benefit was to expose lies and corruption. So explain how “I can’t breathe.” is more important as a political slogan than a physical request by a dying man not to be killed.

              1. It’s only important if you’re telling the truth.

                If you’re lying it could be a trick.

                Neither free speech nor politics has anything to do with it.

                1. I’m impressed. When offering you the choice between two evils, I didn’t expect you to go full retard.

                  Are you saying that, when Eric Garner said, “I can’t breathe.” and subsequently died that he was lying or are you saying that “I can’t breathe.” as a political statement isn’t protected free speech?

                  Sometimes it’s best not to interrupt your enemies when they’re making a mistake digging their own grave and sometimes it’s best to hand them a shovel.

                  1. I support you saying you can’t breathe until you’re blue in the face.

                    Why are you suggesting that As an example of speech that shouldn’t be protected?

                    I said that lying is coercion and shouldn’t be protected.

                    If lying was illegal maybe the cops would believe more people who said they can’t breathe.

                    1. Be careful of what you wish for. Who gets to decide who’s lying?

                      It’s clear from the comment section here that if lying were illegal, you’d be in jail for spreading lies about the Holocaust.

                    2. It’s clear that you are unfamiliar with argument.

                      Just saying that I’ve lied doesn’t make it true.

                      To do that you’d have to reference irrefutable evidence that the holocaust occurred.

                      You won’t because you can’t. ALL you can do is call me a liar. Well, that just isn’t enough.

                    3. Rob Misek, you are assuming two things:

                      First, that you get to submit evidence on your behalf that what you are saying is true.

                      Second, that you are assuming there exists no physical evidence that your narrative is false.

                      Third, that judges who believe with their heart will actually care about physical evidence, one way or the other.

                      In other words, if the people who hold the power believe something is true, it is you who will be found the liar.

                    4. Heh. I linked to the Wikipedia article before reading it (I merely skimmed over it, and skimmed over the sources, hoping I could find a particular link I wanted to use instead.)

                      It contains this particular gem:

                      “The Institute for Historical Review publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable “proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz.” Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz, submitted his own testimony as proof but it was ignored. He then sued IHR in the United States and the case was subsequently settled for $50,000, plus $40,000 in damages for personal suffering. The court declared the statement that “Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944″ was a fact.”

                      I’d like to see evidence that the Courts have ever been sympathetic to the cause of holocaust denial. Every time I see an example of it being challenged in courts, it loses.

                    5. Here is the evidence presented, review and consider it or define yourself as a bigot.

                      Read the book,
                      Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality.

                      http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23629458-breaking-the-spell

                      You’ll have to provide irrefutable evidence to prove it exists, like I just did.

                      Who exactly has power over reality, truth? Be specific.

                    6. “Who exactly has power over reality, truth? Be specific.”

                      In America? No one in particular, unless you are dragged into a Court of Law, in which case it’s a Jury or a Judge, and then things get complicated. There’s a reason why the Constitution guarantees a lawyer will be provided for you in criminal proceedings.

                      In Germany? They make holocaust denial a crime, so I’ll let you draw your own conclusions from that.

                      As for the book, “Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality.” Maybe I’ll have the chance to read it someday, but for now, and for the purposes of this conversation, I’ll have to decline. I will post a review by one Michiel Gielen, that I have the feeling is very accurate:

                      A horrible and dangerous book. Kollerstrom cherrypicks himself through the history of the Holocaust, ignores evidence, presents dubious evidence and investigations from other deniers and tells outright lies.

                      No archeological evidence in Treblinka? Google archeological evidence in Treblinka.

                      Zyklon B only used as pesticide? Read Rudolf Hoess and the reports of the German perpetrators, well documented. Literally tons of documents, trials and confessions, it is truly amazing.

                      The extermination of the Jews was mostly done by bullets (read Holocaust by Bullets by P. Desbois and the tons of -physical- evidence). Something in Babi-Yar but I forgot. Masters of Death by Rhodes and of course the “Einzatsgruppen Trials”, all conveniently forgotten in this vile book.

                      I am happy for the white supremacists who want their Aryan bias confirmed. Read “Denying the Holocaust by Michael Schermer” for a concise, patient and intelligent rebuttal of all deniers. If you don’t like Israel and/or the political exploitatation of the Holocaust, read Norman Finkelstein’s “The Holocaust Industry”. If you are a nazi and hate jews, stick a rusty nail in your brain.

                      Your Führer is dead, get over it.

                      I have looked over the evidence before, and I will corroborate this: the physical evidence is overwhelming. The testimonial evidence — of surviving Jews, of surviving non-Jews, and even of the former guards and officers that ran the camps — is overwhelming. And while documents are lacking, the proof that much of this was done by oral order, and many documents were destroyed, is also overwhelming.

                      In short, I cannot refute this book here, for a very simple reason: it will take books and books to refute it. You gave me one book to refute. To do so, I refer you to the three dozen or so books that are the sources for the Wikipedia article for “Evidence for the Holocaust.” Books filled with testimony, archaeology, journal entries, and historical documents.

                      Heck, if you don’t want to go through all that, look at the five books mentioned in the review I just copied and pasted.

                      And I’ll tell you what: if you can refute all these things, I’ll accept that the holocaust maybe didn’t happen.

                      And then I’ll want to see what you have to say about the holodomor.

                    7. You admitted that you’re refusing to review the evidence that soundly refutes the holocaust narrative.

                      You are by definition a bigot. Fuck off.

                    8. Why should I be the only one to refute evidence? It is you who are unwilling to look at the totality of the evidence.

                      You would have me look at the holes of a block of Swiss cheese and announce “there is no cheese!”

                      The very fact that you aren’t willing to rebut the many books out there that confirm that the Holocaust really did happen, but are convinced that if I read a single book, I will be convinced, shows just how deluded you are. I have read books like this before — books that try to debunk something that is popularly held — and I have found that such books merely make me angry, because I do not have the time to write the five page rebuttals that every paragraph of such a book requires.

                      The fact that you are unwilling to read anything beyond this book (or other books like this) confirms to me that you are unwilling to do that kind of work itself.

                      But the facts remain, though, that evidence is overwhelmingly and decidedly not on your side.

                    9. And I should add that it’s funny how you were critical of the commenters here because they wouldn’t engage you to refute your claims. Now that someone is here to do so (albeit doing so at ta handicap — after all, it typically takes 10 times the effort to debunk an easily-made false claim), you are angry that someone is challenging you on your BS.

                      It’s funny how that works, is it not?

                    10. I read your wiki article that said zyklon b was thrown into the windows of the gas chambers.

                      That is a ridiculous impossibility. Zyklon b must be heated to activate and no gas chamber has windows.

                      You on the other hand are the one refusing to review the evidence that refutes the holocaust narrative. You may not be able to refute it but nothing is stopping you from reviewing the evidence.

                      You, not me, are the bigot.

                    11. “You, not me, are the bigot.”

                      If standing up for the truth — and accepting the evidence of historians, archaeologists, Allied troops, survivors of camps, the officers who ran those camps, the documents that establish the purpose of those camps, the public and private hatred that Nazis displayed against anyone who opposed them (but most particularly the Jews), the policies that the Nazis put into place that gradually squeezed Jews out of society altogether, the journal entries of those involved, and so on, and so forth — then I will happily be a bigot.

                      Because I would rather be a bigot than be whatever you happen to be, if that’s indeed what it means to be a bigot.

                      (But at this point, I do not trust your acumen in deciding what’s real and what’s not, so I don’t trust you really know what it means to be a bigot, either.)

                    12. You REFUSE to review the evidence that refutes everything in the holocaust narrative.

                      By definition you are a bigot.

                      Examples of bigotry in a Sentence

                      “ a deeply ingrained bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments”

                      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry

                    13. “a deeply ingrained bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments”

                      Ah, so you are conceding that you are, indeed, a bigot — because I sure as heck can’t convince you to look at the counter-evidence to you claim that the holocaust didn’t really happen!

                    14. You provided evidence which I have reviewed and refuted.

                      I provided evidence that you refused to review much less consider or refute.

                      Yes obviously you are by definition a bigot.

                    15. And in the process of all this arguing, we forget one crucial thing: your ideas have been tested in the Court of Law, and have been found wanting. If lying were illegal, you would be the one in jail.

                      It doesn’t matter one whit who’s right about the holocaust, because I wasn’t the one who made this determination. It was the Courts who did so. Sure, courts have been wrong before — but that’s of little consolation for those, like you, who claim to be telling the truth.

                      And the holocaust denier who lost the legal argument? The government didn’t come after him. He was the plaintiff. He was trying to make the case that he wasn’t a liar, that the Defendant committed libel against him for doing so, and he failed. As such, he only had to pay legal fees for losing the case.

                      Had “lying” been illegal, he would have been the Defendant, and he would be in jail. And that would be your fate, too!

                      So, are you sure you want lying to be illegal? I’m still on the side of “no, it shouldn’t be, except in the case of perjury”, but with our exchanges, I’m beginning to wonder if we should make an exception ….

                    16. You fucking retard.

                      You actually are arguing that courts define truth, reality.

                      That reality changes when courts decisions change.

                      Yes I want lying criminalized, like courts have already realized it must be, to recognize reality.

                    17. “You actually are arguing that courts define truth, reality.”

                      No, I’m not. I’m arguing that if lying is illegal, the Courts determine the truth. There’s no way around that.

                      And I’m arguing that if the Courts decide what’s true, there’s no hope for holocaust denial. We already have precedence for this.

                      Go ahead, make lying illegal — at least, make it illegal, beyond testifying in a Court (where it’s already illegal). If we succeed, you’ll very likely be among the first to be arrested — because the Courts already consider holocaust denial to be lying.

                    18. When lying is illegal the courts won’t be able to censor evidence that exposes The lie.

                      The holocaust is the lie.

                      The evidence that refutes it is illegal to share in every nation where it allegedly occurred.

                      People are imprisoned for sharing truth and their defence is illegal.

                      I soundly refuted fundamental evidence that you provided and doing so proved the holocaust narrative is a lie.

                    19. “When lying is illegal the courts won’t be able to censor evidence that exposes The lie.”

                      Ah. I see that you are completely unaware that a Judge has significant power over what can and cannot be admitted as evidence.

                      Why in the world do you think that if you give government power to do something (in this case, whether something is true or false), you are going to be the one who “determines the outcome”?

                      Government doesn’t work that way. Which is why the Founders gave us the First Amendment — so that we wouldn’t have to rely on government to get it right.

                    20. “When lying is illegal the courts won’t be able to censor evidence that exposes The lie.”

                      And one more thing: who the heck in America is censoring anything? If the evidence truly was being censored, you would not have been able to so much as give me a link to a book that allegedly denies the holocaust.

                      Which makes your argument completely stupid, because you clearly don’t understand how censors work: Congress passes a law to make it illegal to say something. The Police find that you said something, and they drag you into Court to put you on trial. The DA presents evidence that you said something, and your lawyer (assuming you really did say it) won’t be able to put up a defense — so you are put into prison a long time, and your books and papers and online comments are destroyed.

                      In other words, making lying illegal isn’t by a long shot going to “bring out the truth”. Making lying illegal enables censorship.

                      What could make you believe such a crazy idea that government is on your side? I suspect it may be all that holocaust denial literature you find so interesting — you seem convinced that Nazis were right all along, and if only they had Government Power (like they used to!) everything will be ok.

                      Well, I have news for you. This never ends the way you expect. Your enemies get the power instead, and they do horrible things to you.

                  2. if germans really wanted to develop human gas chambers they wouldn’t have thrown zyklon b into the windows of a shower house as YOUR OWN REFERENCE TO SUPPORT THE NARRATIVE says was done even though it could never work.

                    That’s it. Your source says that’s how it was done and it could never work. Unless your saying that your own source is lying, the holocaust lie is BUSTED.

  5. I feel sarcasm heavily from that last sentence, but you never know, so I’ll answer honestly. The thing about liars, is they’re damn good at convincing others that the ones telling the truth are lying. You always have to be careful when making levers of power against bad things, because those with bad intentions will be the most likely to try and use them. Humans are amazing at twisting language and logic to suit whatever they wanted to do anyways.

    1. And so.eiars really do believe they’re not lying.
      These are psychotics, and supported by others when psychosis becomes a mass movement.
      We see it here daily

      1. *some liars

    2. This was supposed to be in response to Rob Misek above.

      1. Oh.

        No sarcasm.

        Seriously, I’ve demonstrated that lying is coercion. Your response didn’t say why it shouldn’t be criminalized.

        1. I take a stab at it, by repeating a comment I made to you in another thread:

          Be careful of what you wish for [in your desire to ban lying]. Who gets to decide who’s lying?

          It’s clear from the comment section here that if lying were illegal, you’d be in jail for spreading lies about the Holocaust.

          1. Just saying that I’ve lied doesn’t make it true.

            To do that you’d have to reference irrefutable evidence that the holocaust occurred.

            You won’t because you can’t. ALL you can do is call me a liar. Well, that just isn’t enough.

            1. I wish I can find a link to that one website that has a very thorough run-down of the evidence. Alas, these two links will have to do:

              First, the trial materials where a holocaust denier sued an author for libel, because the author called the denier a liar. She won her trial.

              Holocaust Denial on Trial

              1. Spoiler alert! The holocaust denier lost his libel suit.

              2. That wiki article talks about evidence without scrutinizing it.

                For example, from the section on gas chambers they produce this

                “ Deniers have said for years that physical evidence is lacking because they have seen no holes in the roof of the Birkenau gas chamber where the Zyklon was poured in. (In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.) ”

                Except zyklon b NEEDED to be heated to activate the cyanide. “Throwing it in” would DO NOTHING. That’s just science.

                That’s an example of the scrutiny employed by wiki.

                1. What kind of gas chamber has windows?

                  People would have stayed near the fresh air and lived for hours.

                  1. Let me search for a picture of an Auschwitz gas chamber.

                    Ah, I see it! And I see the windows! But it’s kindof hard to “stay near the windows for fresh air and live for hours” when the windows aren’t designed to be opened in the first place (or, as I would guess about the ones that weren’t designed with holes in the roof for the purpose of dropping in gas) designed to only be opened and closed from the outside.

                    As for “Zyclon B needs heat to be activated” I have a sneaky suspicion that if Nazis knew how to activate Zyclon B to kill lice, then they would know how to activate it to kill people.

                    Fun fact: there were two types of buildings at Auschwitz: ones allegedly used for de-lousing clothing, and ones allegedly used for killing people. Isn’t funny how modern day measurements of levels of Zyclon B in the bricks show that concentrations in the bricks of the first type are consistent with de-lousing clothing, and that the concentrations of the bricks in the second type are consistent with killing humans?

                    1. Of course the delousing chambers had specifically designed heating, forced air circulation and evacuation equipment to use zyklon b.

                      They didn’t throw it in windows.

                      The shower houses didn’t.

                    2. You know, I’m tired of arguing with you. I’m not the expert here, so I’m not the one you need to refute.

                      There are experts who have described the construction of the gas chambers, how they were constructed, how they were operated, and how they were at least partially destroyed. Their descriptions are collaborated by testimony from people who were there, both as victims and as perpetrators, and there remains the physical evidence of the ruins of the chambers that exist to this day, as well as arial photos taken at the time.

                      I will not respond until you find these photos, these testimonies, and these ruins, and explain in exquisite detail why all these evaluations are wrong.

                      I will not accept the “testimony” of someone coming after the fact, who completely ignores this evidence except for a very, very small handful of inconsistencies, and then make the claim that “it’s all lies”.

                      You, however, seem to accept the word of this silly little book above all else.

                  2. if germans wanted to develop human gas chambers they wouldn’t have thrown zyklon b into the windows of a shower house as YOUR OWN REFERENCE TO SUPPORT THE NARRATIVE says was done even though it could never work.

                    That’s it. Your source says that’s how it was done and it could never work. Unless your saying that your own source is lying, the holocaust lie is BUSTED.

                    1. You keep saying this over and over, so I have to finally put in to rest:

                      How is Zyklon B activated?

                      Raising the temperature and lowering the pressure. Temperature.

                      The boiling point of hydrogen cyanide is 28ºC. Zylon-B is just hydrogen cyanide liquid and hydrogen cyanide gas in between grains of diatomaceous earth. Most of the hydrogen cyanide molecules are adsorbed to the surface of the grains.

                      The pressure of the cans holding Zyklon B are under high pressure. Standard room temperature is 25ºC. So they just have to open the can to lower the pressure to 1 standard atmosphere, and allow the temperature in the chamber to increase due to body heat.

                      And here is an example of how it was thrown into windows:

                      Their particulars are recorded as if they were new arrivals – in the evening the supervisor of the Special Squad, SS- Hauptscharfuhrer Otto Moll, and the other SS guards watching them drink schnapps, which they offered to the prisoners. As soon as the prisoners were drunk , the room they were in was locked from the outside. Zyklon B was thrown in through a window, which killed them. News of this gassing despite the secrecy, reached the surviving members of the Sonderkommando, who began to prepare for an uprising.

                      When an attempt was made to liquidate a second batch on 7 October 1944 a revolt broke out during which several hundred prisoners were either killed fighting or murdered.

                      Considering that Zyklon B releases hydrogen cyanide, a substance used in gas chambers to execute people, I fail to see how it would be “impossible” to die from it, were it thrown into a poorly-ventilated room filled with people, particularly if that room were room temperature, or slightly above so.

                    2. This comment was stuck in moderation, so I’ll just have to post it without links.

                      You keep saying this over and over, so I have to finally put in to rest:

                      [link removed]How is Zyklon B activated?[/link]

                      Raising the temperature and lowering the pressure. Temperature.

                      The boiling point of hydrogen cyanide is 28ºC. Zylon-B is just hydrogen cyanide liquid and hydrogen cyanide gas in between grains of diatomaceous earth. Most of the hydrogen cyanide molecules are adsorbed to the surface of the grains.

                      The pressure of the cans holding Zyklon B are under high pressure. Standard room temperature is 25ºC. So they just have to open the can to lower the pressure to 1 standard atmosphere, and allow the temperature in the chamber to increase due to body heat.

                      [link removed]And here is an example of how it was thrown into windows:[/link]

                      Their particulars are recorded as if they were new arrivals – in the evening the supervisor of the Special Squad, SS- Hauptscharfuhrer Otto Moll, and the other SS guards watching them drink schnapps, which they offered to the prisoners. As soon as the prisoners were drunk , the room they were in was locked from the outside. Zyklon B was thrown in through a window, which killed them. News of this gassing despite the secrecy, reached the surviving members of the Sonderkommando, who began to prepare for an uprising.

                      When an attempt was made to liquidate a second batch on 7 October 1944 a revolt broke out during which several hundred prisoners were either killed fighting or murdered.

                      Considering that Zyklon B releases hydrogen cyanide, a substance used in gas chambers to execute people, I fail to see how it would be “impossible” to die from it, were it thrown into a poorly-ventilated room filled with people, particularly if that room were room temperature, or slightly above so.

            2. Second, granted, it’s Wikipedia, but it not only has summaries, but it has a lot of links to evidence as well.

              Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust

              Do with this information what you will — however, the claim that there is no evidence, physical or otherwise, of the holocaust, is ridiculous on its face.

              1. I’ve reviewed your evidence, wiki, and demonstrated the IMPOSSIBILITY of what wiki considers evidence.

                I’ve demonstrated that I’m not a bigot.

                For ANY testimony anywhere in support of The gas chamber story, provide any mention of bright pink bodies. The Scientifically necessary outcome from cyanide poisoning and something no witness could leave out.

                I’ve also given you a link to a book of evidence that refutes the holocaust narrative. If you don’t want to be a bigot you’ll have to read and consider it.

                1. You have done no such thing. You have made up something in your own mind — that it’s impossible to administer Zyclon B via window — and are convinced the entire thing is a hoax.

                  If you’re so convinced you’re right, why don’t we play a little game, shall we? Give me a little bit of time to design a “gas chamber” with a window — I’ll make it out of concrete and glass and wood, to keep things simple — and give me a canister of Zyclon B. We will put you in the chamber.

                  My goal is to build a chamber that’s as close to the “alleged” Nazi gas chamber as possible, and then administer enough Zyclon B that you will die.

                  Your goal is much simpler: to not die.

                  Are you willing to take me up on this offer? Or are you afraid that I have some trick up my sleeve?

                  (Hint: I do have a trick up my sleeve. I’m going to drop activated Zyclon B through the window.)

                  1. (I would also add: I wasn’t there at the time to see it for myself, but I have a very strong suspicion that this is what Nazis did. And they probably closed the window afterward for good measure, unless they could rely on some weird fact that I’d have to look up to confirm, like “Zyclon B is heavier than air”.)

                    1. I have reviewed And refuted the evidence you provided.

                      It is scientifically impossible to throw active zyklon b through a window into an ungrateful room and have it continue releasing cyanide.

                      Since that is the evidence you provided as how cyanide was introduced to the windowed shower house, and it is impossible, the whole cyanide narrative is refuted.

                      That’s not a problem for my argument but it soundly refutes yours.

                      The evidence is in Kollerstroms book which you refuse to review. You don’t even know what evidence is in the book.

                      Yes you are a bigot.

                    2. Unheated room

                  2. Go ahead and develop your dipshit method because I bet you’ll be dead “throwing” activated zyklon b through a window before I am on the other side of a room with windows.

                    Germans developed jet engines and rockets. They don’t come up with dipshit ideas.

                    1. Just to be clear here: you’re telling me it’s harder to design a gas chamber to kill humans than it is to develop one that kills lice, when you need substantially less Zyklon B to kill humans than to kill lice?

                      I somehow find it just a tad hard to believe that German engineers can easily do the former, but that it’s impossible for them to do the latter.

                    2. Thanks for clarifying my point.

                      Yes, if germans wanted to develop human gas chambers they wouldn’t have thrown zyklon b into the windows of a shower house as YOUR OWN REFERENCE TO SUPPORT THE NARRATIVE says was done even though it could never work.

                      That’s it. Your source says that’s how it was done and it could never work. Unless your saying that your own source is lying, the holocaust lie is BUSTED.

                    3. I have since read up on how Zyklon B was activated, and how it was thrown into windows:

                      Step 1. Get the future victims drunk. Quietly close the door behind them. Make sure that the room is unusually warm, ie, slightly above room temperature.

                      Step 2. Open window. Open canister of Zyklon B. Throw it in.

                      Step 3. Close window.

                      Considering that it doesn’t take much to activate Zyklon B (it’s kept under pressure, and it only needs above-room-temperature to be released), and considering that Zyklon B releases hydrogen cyanide, a gas used for executions in gas chambers, I fail to see why this scenario is implausible, let alone impossible.

                      And I was right. It a German engineer would have no problem figuring this out, and there’s a good chance that even non-engineers were able to do this.

                    4. Furthermore, the use of this technique doesn’t preclude the use of gas chambers specifically designed for this, either. Indeed, it’s easy to see that this was a step towards creating the gas chambers specifically designed for this purpose.

                    5. Like I said, BUSTED.

                    6. You need to learn how to spell better. “Proven beyond a reasonable doubt” is not spelled “BUSTED”.

  6. Holding people responsible for speech that is made on their platform is not a “free speech” issue. White is being his usual dishonest self in claiming that it is. People like White engage in real sophistry on this issue. When a platform bans someone for the content of their speech, White and his ilk is there to tell you that that isn’t a free speech issue because it is their platform and if your right to free speech doesn’t include the right to use their platform. But try to hold the owner of a platform responsible for the speech on it, then suddenly White claims it is all about free speech and not allowing owners to service content without taking any responsibility for that content violates free speech.

    Both of those things cannot be true. If the platform owners kicking people off is not a free speech issue, then holding platform owners responsible for the speech they host isn’t either. The assumption behind the first contention is that any individuals access to any particular platform is not a free speech but a property right issue. Okay, if that is true, then holding the platform responsible for the speech is also a property right issue.

    The bottom line is weather or not Facebook is responsible for what goes on it’s platform or not is not a free speech issue. Saying they are in no way compels Facebook to host speech it doesn’t like or do anything except make a greater effort to moderate what goes on it’s platform. We can debate the wisdom of that but the debate is not about free speech but about the nature and scope of the responsibility and potential liability that comes with running a business.

    1. “When a platform bans someone for the content of their speech, White and his ilk is there to tell you that that isn’t a free speech issue because it is their platform and if your right to free speech doesn’t include the right to use their platform. But try to hold the owner of a platform responsible for the speech on it, then suddenly White claims it is all about free speech and not allowing owners to service content without taking any responsibility for that content violates free speech.”

      Well said, John.

    2. How is Facebook “held responsible” for the content it hosts except by government? Are they supposed to field strongly worded letters or divine the intentions of individual boycotts?

      1. It is held responsible in court by plaintiffs who have been slandered or had their copyrights violated. There would be no government enforcement just civil enforcement. Section 230 gave social media platforms immunity from liability that no other publisher or platform owner had ever been given. It is not about the government regulating what goes on Facebook. It is about whether Facebook is civilly liable to those harmed by that content.

        1. This cannot be repeated enough.

          Section 230 is not about free speech, it is government granted protection – ie. licensed speech.

          Calling it anything else is a lie.

        2. There would be no government enforcement just civil enforcement.

          You are deeply confused. “Civil” in this context is not a separate category from government. When you sue someone, you are invoking the power of government to try to punish that person. Because it’s civil rather than criminal, the punishments involve money¹ rather than incarceration, but they are imposed by government.

          ¹And sometimes an injunction, too, which is enforced by threat of incarceration.

          1. So if I said I was going to shoot you, David Nieporent, right in the face shortly after murdering your family in front of you would you want me facing a civil trial, a criminal trial, or private/no trial?

            1. Your question is rather ambiguous; are you telling me, “I’m going to shoot you shortly after murdering your family in front of you”? Or are you telling me, “I’m going to shoot you,” shortly after murdering my family in front me?

              And either way, what does that have to do with the topic?

              1. And either way, what does that have to do with the topic?

                Because you’re deeply confused if you think the absence of government means the absence of force. A more fundamental fact that you seem to be more oblivious to than John, who’s purported to be a lawyer, is about the involvement of governments in courts.

                You invented a stupid straw man. Nobody with an IQ above room temperature thinks that courts just magically spring into existence because disputes need settled and then magically disappear and everyone just agrees “Well that’s what the courts decided.” Moreover, only people with IQs marginally above room temperature would think others think that.

          2. FFS. He’s not “deeply confused.” He’s accurately if clumsily pointing out that if Section 230 goes away government won’t be running around prosecuting people for speech; rather, private parties will be allowed to sue other private parties for defamation or copyright infringement, just like they can in any other context.

            1. No, he’s deeply confused. He seems to think — and perhaps you do too — that there is no state action involved in a civil suit for defamation. He is mistaken. While most defamation actions are indeed initiated by a private party, they are still invoking the power of government when they do so.

              That’s why suing (e.g.) Reason for defamation for a comment I post here has first amendment implications, while Reason deleting my comment does not.

              1. John and I are both attorneys. Neither of us think that. This is not a case of us being confused. This is a case of you being the prototypical Internet ACKSHULLY fuckhead — parsing a clumsily-worded comment as uncharitably as possible so that you can cosplay as a smart person.

  7. As usual, the real problem is government overreach. Slavery was made possible by government overreach, replaced by government-mandated Jim Crow segregation, replaced by government-mandated reverse discrimination. Government has weakened the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments (curious how that list leaves out the 2nd) because government is powerful enough to define its own limits, a sure recipe for expansion of government at the expense of individual rights.

    Both sides here are right in their own way, but neither side wants to recognize that government is too damn powerful for our own good. They are happy to use government for their own purposes, but fail to recognize that cancel culture and everything else only works because of the ever-present threat of government intervention.

    A government strong enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take what others want.

    Bring back freedom of association. Let bigots be bigots for all the world to see. If some yahoo wants to keep half the local populace out of his stores, let him do so — without government backing or banning his actions. Get government out of the school business — let parents and students make their own decisions for their own reasons.

    1. I am not really sure how slavery was made possible by government overreach. Slavery existed because people found it desirable and the government did not outlaw it. Slavery existed to some degree in all of the original 13 colonies. It only ended in the northern states because state governments outlawed it.

      1. Slavery is kidnapping. That’s illegal. That governments did not treat it as kidnapping means governments made it legal.

        Governments did not make slavery illegal. They stopped making kidnapping legal.

        1. Governments refused to stop it. But you could say that about anything. By your logic, alcoholism is the result of government overreach because the government ended prohibition. The government’s refusal to stop something cannot be defined as “overreach”. You cannot be said to overreach when your sin is failing to act.

          1. No. The government explicitly condoned kidnapping under the guise of slavery. The fugitive slave law recognized that; it was not the fugitive kidnapping victim law. Your prohibition analogy is not an analogy.

            1. The government explicitly condoned kidnapping under the guise of slavery.

              Not so fast there skippy, you went from first to third without touching second base. You started out saying ‘governments’ and then switched to ‘The Government’.

              So, if one government allows kidnapping and the other government allows for the purchase and sale of indentured servants, but explicitly not kidnapping, which one is guilty of allowing kidnapping? What if neither government is guilty of kidnapping and the people traded as slaves are prisoners of war? What if the prisoners of war were active combatants of a regime or regimes that was firmly opposed to kidnapping and/or slavery in all forms?

              1. Quibble away and convince nobody of either your argument or your wisdom.

                1. Damn, dude, you admitted defeat pretty much instantly

              2. My bad, I thought you were talking about slavery and kidnapping. I didn’t realize you were exploiting them to disguise your secret dick measuring contest.

                Sorry for ruining your contest.

        2. It wasn’t kidnapping until they acknowledged that black people were humans. Deciding whether black people were humans was pretty much the core fight.

          1. And the fight goes on to this day — except that it goes well beyond skin color.

            There’s one side who believes most humans are cogs in a vast societal machine, and that through careful planning by a small percent of “real” people — the people smart enough to be in charge — this societal machine will function perfectly, and give us a Utopian society. Granted, some of these cogs will be defective — but we could always crush them, and then bury or shred or burn the remains — and eventually, what’s left will function perfectly!

            There’s another side that believes that all humans are individuals, and that they can — and should! — be trusted to work out between themselves relationships that will benefit each other, their families and friends, and even the entirety of society. This side believes that life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are of paramount importance, and that any “expert” who believes they know better than individuals concerning how to run their lives is bound to be wrong — because there’s no possible way for any one expert, or even a large gathering of them, to know the desires and needs of each and every individual (and even if they did, the combinatorial explosion of all possible relationships would be so huge, no one would know how to find the optimal paths anyway), which is required in order to determine the best possible outcome for everyone. (And for what it’s worth, the “experts” don’t even try — they merely guess, or worse, they merely figure out what’s best for themselves and act accordingly.)

            I know which side you’re on, Tony, but I’d be amused to see which side you think you’re on!

      2. If slavery in america was a result of Holy Emperor Charles V refusing to grant spanish colonials feudal Lordship and fiefs in the new world as they did in the Old, then it could be argued government overreach led to slavery in America.

    2. “Slavery was made possible by government overreach”

      Because slavery was absent in the Americas (much less the whole fucking world) before centralized government came along.

      That is paint chip level stupidity right there.

      1. Are you saying the Roman and Greek and Egyptian and Sumerian and all other governments did not make slavery legal?

        There’s your stupidity, look in the mirror.

        1. That is a stupendously stupid question. Governments do not compel that which is legal, they punish that which is made illegal.

          Or are you really trying to say that slavery didn’t occur until government ‘made’ it legal? Isn’t that why you chose to focus on those governments from antiquity, rather than address what was going on with the indigenous of the Americas?

          1. “Governments do not compel that which is legal” — right, so paying taxes, buying health insurance, following building codes, and helping catch fugitive slaves were all illegal activities which the government punished by enforcing.

            1. which the government punished by enforcing

              I’m not 100% convinced that sentence is even grammatically correct. They punished paying taxes by enforcing paying taxes? WTF does that even mean? I’m having trouble coming up with a noun that fits in that sentence and make sense. They punished Jews by enforcing Judaism? They punished gravity by enforcing gravity?

              1. Yeah, somewhere he crossed the line from stupidity to psychosis.

            2. Funny watching you two clowns show your cupidity.

          2. Government respected and enforced the property rights of slave owners over slaves.

            1. Government respected and enforced the property rights of slave owners over slaves.

              You mean they enforced property rights over arguably more fundamental human rights. Slaves held no property and were not infrequently property-less criminals, convicts, and sociopaths themselves.

              And I say ‘arguably more fundamental human rights’ as plenty of slaves entered servitude voluntarily. That’s not to dismiss the whole of slavery as benign volunteerism by any means, just to make the case that even a “I stand on the side of human rights and people’s free will.” position necessarily avoids or solves the issue.

              1. They enforced slave owner property rights in violation of the most important property right of all: the right of self-ownership.

                Therefore, governments selectively enforced one property right in violation of a much more fundamental property right, which they did not defend.

                1. They enforced slave owner property rights in violation of the most important property right of all: the right of self-ownership.

                  Maybe I didn’t make the religious/oxymoronic nature of your assertion clear: if the right of self-ownership is sacrosanct or inviolate, can someone sell themselves into bondage?

                  Aside from that;
                  1. Are humans property or not?
                  2. Does one’s right to self-defense every supersede anyone else’s right to self-ownership?

                  Again, I’m not saying your precepts are fundamentally wrong, they just aren’t complete enough to address the problem(s) as stated.

                  1. Perhaps it should be possible for one to sell himself into bondage — I can think of good reasons why, at a minimum, such “selling” cannot give absolute rights to the “buyer”, and perhaps why such “selling” can even be negated by standard contract law — but how can a belief in individual self-ownership then apply to the children? If this kind of bondage were legal under self-ownership, it cannot continue on to the seller’s future children, because they have a right to self-ownership themselves.

                    What’s more damning, however, is that very few slaves entered into such a contract to begin with. Either they were kidnapped from Africa and forced to become a slave, or their children inherited that status without any say, one way or the other. Those few slaves that accepted such a contract, did so after having the chance to have their own freedom — but very few slaves were granted this.

                    The idea that it should be possible to sell oneself into slavery is a red herring, and is completely at odds with how slavery, in practice, really happened.

                    And no, one’s rights to self defense supersedes everyone else’s rights to self-ownership: per the non-aggression principle, no one has the right to initiate an act of aggression against another, and if that act of aggression threatens severe bodily harm or even death, then the person making that aggression has violated the agressee’s right to self-ownership, who can then respond in kind in order to stop the threat. Furthermore, once the threat is gone, there is no right to act in self defense — thus reaffirming the aggressor’s right to self-ownership.

                    1. Bah! My kingdom for an edit button!

                      “And no, one’s rights to self defense supersedes everyone else’s rights to self-ownership” should read “And no, one’s rights to self defense doesn’t supersede everyone else’s rights to self-ownership”

              2. I don’t often make moral/ethical absolute statements, but I’m gonna go for this one.

                You can’t own other people. So no, the government did not “enforce property rights”, because the claimed “right” to own another person never existed.

                It was a case of “might makes right”, from the get-go.

                1. That’s the basis for all property claims. Slaveholders didn’t fight an entire war because they thought they might lose a right they weren’t entitled to.

                  1. Aww, fuck, Tony agrees so now I have to change my position.

                    Seriously, though, the “right” he claim didn’t exist existed as standard practice longer into antiquity than the notion that it shouldn’t even today. I’m not saying it was the right position, but to act like people didn’t have the right to buy an animal to pull a plow or exploit prisoners of war and sociopaths for labor is nearly as absurd today as it was then. And make no mistake about it, there are people out there who believe as public policy that we shouldn’t be allowed to own pets.

                    1. Seriously, though, the “right” he claim didn’t exist existed as standard practice longer into antiquity than the notion that it shouldn’t even today.

                      There’s a reason “Appeal to Tradition” is a fallacy, you know. Just because something was done for a long time doesn’t mean it was ever “right”.

                      But hey, if you want to argue that rights are made-up human things, and that “natural rights” are gibberish, I’ll largely agree with you. But try to get me to agree that anyone has ever had a “right” to own another person and you expose yourself as an immoral and unethical cad of a man, whose immorality is only being held back by the barrel of a gun.

                  2. I have the courage to say that slave owners were wrong.
                    I don’t need to take a vote or marching orders.

    3. I would argue that the 2nd amendment has been weakened by certain state and local governments. In the Bronx cops and criminals have guns, but it is absurdly hard for law abiding citizens, especially minorities, to legally own a gun. The process for obtaining a gun license in NYC is expensive and difficult. Even if one does everything right, meets all the prerequisites and doesnt have so much as a parking ticket like myself, the application can still be rejected for no clear reason. And it says so on the application that it can be denied just because the government doesn’t think you should have a gun and you don’t get a refund of the fees. So ultimately law abiding citizens are at the mercy of cops on one side and criminals on the other. Most of the people where I grew up are not criminals, but lived in fear of them and an increasingly militant police force that made us feel like we’d done something wrong because we lived in a high crime area. Maybe if non-criminals could more readily access the right to protect themselves, families, and property that would change?

    4. Freedom of Association is 100% A-OK with “cancel culture”.

  8. I watched one Jordan Peterson YouTube and all of a sudden I can’t get away from recommendations of videos by rightwing people whining about how their free speech is being threatened.

    Since government is not banning and has not expressed any intention to ban anybody’s opinions on trans people, I can only assume these asshats have mistaken an internet connection for credibility in social discourse, and they’re simply mad about socially acceptable people disagreeing with them.

    How many star-making, monetized righteous tantrums does Jordan Peterson have to throw about something that wasn’t even real before his free speech is deemed secure?

    1. Well that took all of 30 seconds to debunk.

      New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23)

      The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:

      1. Well that took all of 30 seconds to debunk.

        It’s Tony’s willful self-retardation. He could read Moby Dick and tell you all about Captain Ahab and his crew but have no clue what you’re talking about when you mention a white whale.

        I mean FFS:

        In November 2017, Lindsay Shepherd, a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University who showed a video of Peterson’s critique of Bill C-16 in her “Canadian Communication in Context” class, was reprimanded by faculty members, who said that she may have violated Bill C-16 by showing the video and holding a debate. Commenting on the incident, Cossman noted that the Canadian Human Rights Act (which C-16 amended) does not apply to universities, and that it would be unlikely for a court to find that the teaching assistant’s actions were discriminatory under the comparable portions of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

      2. That is about the act of discrimination, which has long been considered valid to regulate. You don’t have to agree with the basis of these types of laws, but clearly the act of discrimination against employees for their race or sexual orientation etc. can involve speech. An employer calling an employee or customer a nigger is speech and also invidious discrimination in the appropriate contexts.

        1. Frankly, as horrible as discrimination is, it’s a violation of free association. Banning discrimination is Jim Crow, but in reverse.

    2. Since government is not banning and has not expressed any intention to ban

      It’s easy to identify those who are dishonest. Free Speech is not limited to the First Amendment to which the reference to government limits the discussion. Free Speech includes a much broader set of principles. America has a long history of these principles beyond the FA which are traditionally allowed by acknowledging a difference in the public and private spheres, and also in acknowledging people of goodwill can disagree. So Tony’s engaged in the Motte and Bailey misdirection, defending the Bailey while others are addressing the Motte.

      This is not surprising since leftists have been trying to eliminate the difference between the public and private spheres in accordance with their mantra “the personal is political” the underlying principle of which is “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” This is why they believe Colin Kaepernick should be allowed to protest on while on the job and also that others should be fired for making anti-left political statements off the job. The traditional values of freedom and equal treatment are excised and replaced only with an effort to control.

      1. I don’t think people should be fired for expressing political beliefs, but I’m a softie when it comes to free speech and, fortunately, I have no ability or desire to tell private businesses when they aren’t allowed to look after their own interests under the law.

        Otherwise it’s just people disagreeing with you and you being upset about that.

        1. I have no ability or desire to tell private businesses

          It never occurred to me you would stand up for any non-left winger.

      2. Free speech is equally okay with me firing someone for being an anti-gay bigot, and that anti-gay bigot firing me for being gay.

        1. Free speech is equally okay with me firing someone for being an anti-gay bigot, and that anti-gay bigot firing me for being gay.

          Of course you are lying about what is at issue. In real life left wingers who literally advocate killing are protected while people who criticize BLM have been fired. This is the left’s definition of free speech. The pretense this is about bigotry or racism is just what they say to signal their allies not to pay attention to facts, like a terrorist is taught to claim torture regardless of facts.

          1. In real life left wingers who literally advocate killing are protected while people who criticize BLM have been fired.

            I’ve been saying, for years, that the standard for a “true threat” is way too high, and we need to prosecute more death threats –including death threats made anoymously online– as such.

            But in case you haven’t noticed, death threats are really hard to prosecute, and very often fall under protected speech.

            So yes. In most cases, advocating murder is protected speech. Pretending this is new, or unique to “leftists” is to ignore basically all of American history. And if you can’t think of any examples of conservatives making death-threat commentary and no one caring, then that’s your bias showing.

            And no, I didn’t say or imply this is about bigotry or racism. This is about speech, and attempts to limit speech. Pretending it’s about death threats is to ignore the facts.

    3. I watched one Jordan Peterson YouTube[.]

      Of all of the things you’ve ever said here, this is possibly the least believable.

    4. Actually Peterson is from Canada and their government HAS banned expression of people opinion on transgender. It’s part of their Hate Speech laws. People in Canada have literally been jailed for stating that “Transgender is a form of mental illness”.

      In fact what brought Peterson into the limelight in the first place was his advocacy against a proposed change to speech code in Canada that legally REQUIRED a speaker to use a personal pronoun other then “his” or “hers” if a person told the speaker they wanted to be referred to differently.

      In the U.S., thankfully, we still have the 1st Amendment that would make such laws Unconstitutional. In Petersons native Canada they don’t…. and the “Hate Speech” laws they passed in the last decade pretty much destroyed any speech protections they had in their Charter of Rights and Freedoms….. unfortunately that is a fairly common trend in many Commonwealth countries. We are very fortunate here in the U.S.

    5. You ignored the part where Jordan Petersen is a Canadian, and that he got his start opposing a Canadian law that made it illegal to use the wrong pronoun.

      A law that he always followed anyway — whenever he speaks to a trans person, he always tries to use the pronoun they prefer to use.

  9. In fact, I respectfully submit that most complaining about cancel culture is insincere griping meant to convey “liberals are bad.”

    This article is probably the worst thing I’ve ever read by Ken White. Firing people for saying All Lives Matter is an acceptable cultural norm and those opposed to this principle merely dislike “liberals”. This is a total defense of the far left including substituting dislike for liberals for dislike of the far left. At least we can disregard all Ken’s future admonitions not to attack motives and treat opponents respectfully.

    1. Freedom of association means employers should be able to fire employees for speech the employer dislikes (depending on employment contracts, of course). But it works both ways. Florists, bakers, photographers, etc should be free to refuse service to any would-be customer for any reason. Most partisans accept one but not the other.

      The asymmetry is obvious to any who think for five seconds. Employees are free to quit at any time for any reason, or to reject any prospective employer they want; but employers do not have the same freedom in hiring or firing. People are free to shop at any store of their choosing; but stores are not free to choose which customers they will accept.

      This is government at work. It is the root of 99% of disputes.

      1. +1

        I wonder if that bakery in Colorado that’s been the target of such ire could get away with putting up a “WE WELCOME THE MONEY OF FAGGOTS WHO WILL BURN IN HELL FOREVER IN EXCHANGE FOR CAKE” sign in the window, to demonstrate that they will serve those customers…

  10. Tektok777 a href=”http://185.61.153.46/”>situs judi bola Online Uang Asli Terpercaya Server a href=”http://185.61.153.46/”>sbobet Indonesia Tersedia Banyak Bonus dan permainan Seru Lainnya Terbesar se Asia

    1. LEARN TO DEBUG CODE.

      1. Yeah, how bad do you have to be to get all the other spammers laughing at you?

  11. There is, for instance, a fairly broad consensus that the firing of David Shor was unjust and contemptible.

    What a revealing example. Opposition to cancel culture is just “liberals suck” except when it targets a liberal. Then it’s “contemptible”.

    1. “Consensus” is the correct word. When one side objects to all cancel culture, and the other side only objects to their side being canceled, guess where the consensus lies …..

  12. I think the phrase ‘cancel culture’ or whatever is just the easy excuse for partisan undermining of the 1A.
    I’m not sure there has ever been any interest by the DeRps in the 1A at all. Not at any nanosecond in history. The only acceptable DeRp objective is to specifically enable partisan opposition rather than to enable generic free speech or expression.
    Judges themselves tend to support the 1A but mainly because the verbiage is about as clear and unambiguous as you can get. You DeRp commenters are totally dishonest.

  13. The net effect of this is that I do not want Ken White anywhere near the law, or the culture.

    1. I’m pretty sure Ken’s greatest contribution to the law has been fucking goats.

  14. The biggest threat to free speech and democracy is the democrats embrace of censorship during elections, codified into law, yet overturned by Citizens United. A law that banned books and films during elections, yet is widely embraced with little argument beyond the straw man “money isn’t speech!”, the most widely embraced straw man ever.

    That’s why free speech matters, and why democrats can’t be trusted with it or democracy.

    1. What’s worse is that Citizens United was a case of an organization explicitly organized to criticize a politician, accepting donations for that purpose, and making a movie for that purpose.

      Politicians, of all people, shouldn’t be protected from criticism, especially during an election season.

      Yet Democrats to this day promise to repeal Citizens United.

  15. >>how best to protect and uphold true freedom of speech

    speech is light it doesn’t need your help. get the fuck out of the way and enjoy.

  16. They’re the same voices who try to get people fired for speech when that speech is offensive to them, when that speech comes from the left.

    This is ultimately Ken’s failure. Ken’s link is to someone unequivocally advocating killing police. This person is protected. But Ken thinks expanding that protection to cover someone who claims All Lives Matter is wrong. Further he describes an effort to redress this imbalance as partisan instead of recognizing how partisan the current status is, to say nothing of how insanely partisan this will be if the left implements its full program.

    Incredibly disappointing.

    1. Ken’s shift in perspective over the years has been… well, “incredibly disappointing” pretty well covers it, honestly.

  17. Hi…..Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page. … Click For Full Details.

  18. Just enforce 1A and the laws we have on our books right now.

    “Shall make no law” that’s it. So hate speech is not a crime.

    Facebook Twitter etc. are censoring speech. What they are doing is not reasonable. Therefore their immunity to libel should be revoked.

  19. In February, student Nick Irvin published an article in The California Aggie listing Clover’s various offensive statements about the police. Clover had tweeted, “I am thankful that every living cop will one day be dead, some by their own hand, some by others, too many of old age #letsnotmakemore,” and “it’s easier to shoot cops when their backs are turned.” He had also allegedly said, “People think that cops need to be reformed. They need to be killed,” according to Inside Higher Ed.

    Those are horrifying statements, but they are also protected by the First Amendment. Clover’s general endorsement of violence against the police is not a true threat, or incitement to lawless action.

    Nevertheless, many conservative students would like to see him punished. The campus’s College Republicans chapter sponsored a “Fire Josh Clover” event, and Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher has circulated a petition aimed at achieving the same result.

    Is this an effort to censor speech? Or is it an effort to highlight the type of speech leftists (including Ken) defend even as they advocate other people be fired for criticizing the BLM movement?

  20. *…most complaining about cancel culture is insincere griping meant to convey “liberals are bad.” This is part of a general political effort to associate free speech with the right and censorship with the left. (That effort isn’t just historically laughable and demonstrably untrue, it’s terribly shortsighted and counterproductive if your goal is to sell young people on free speech culture.) As a result, when people of good faith, like my friend Greg Lukianoff, talk about cancel culture, they’re viewed with skepticism. They cannot pretend that their arguments exist in a vacuum; they exist in a culture of relentless, unprincipled misuse of the phrase.*

    In other words, in order to convince young statue-toppling revolutionary leftist mobs and ban-happy tech commissars to actually embrace free speech culture — which is totally a leftwing value anyway, you guys! — you have to convince them that supporting free speech is actually defying traditional conservatism, rejecting the patriarchy and flipping the bird to white-privilege infused boomer libertarianism.

  21. The first guy should stop playing dumb about not really understanding what cancel culture is. It’s making people disappear for making remarks deemed insensitive to some protected group. One strike and you’re out! Even if that strike happened 23 years ago.

    You really can’t see how this censorious puritanism can have a chilling effect on speech and the exchange of ideas?

    1. What if a conservative publication fired an op-Ed writer for saying global warming is real? What if they balked at the very idea of ever hiring someone who believed that? Speech violation or sound business decision?

      1. I would like to see you find an example of that.

        I can think of several conservatives who have said, to one degree or another, that global warming is real, and they weren’t fired over it.

        And it’s far more dangerous to say “global warming isn’t real” at a liberal publication, than it is to say that it’s real at a conservative one.

  22. Trump’s reference was within that same vein: the progressives are trying to make these historical figures “disappear” (canceled) because they did some bad stuff.

    And it’s not partisan, because many moderates and liberals are against that as well (Bill Maher, the “Intellectual Dark Web”, etc.)

  23. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare Click For Full Detail.

  24. ” But what about, for example, gay marriage? It only became legal after the culture accepted its legitimacy—an unthinkable development 50 years ago.”

    I don’t know what country Lukianoff is talking about, but in THIS country the courts imposed gay marriage on one state after another, in the teeth of multiple ballot initiatives, state constitutional amendments, and democratically enacted laws. Which sure looks like gay marriage becoming legal by judicial fiat, and culture only adapting afterwards in stunned resignation.

    Remember Prop 8, in California? Not exactly the most conservative state in the union, but it passed handily as recently as 2008. Efforts to repeal it by initiative failed to even gather enough signatures, in both 2009 and 2010.

    Looks to me like Lukainoff is rewriting history. This was absolutely a case of legal change preceding cultural, and proceeding in the teeth of determined and democratically successful opposition.

    1. It could also be true that unconstitutional marriage bans were permitted to remain on the books because culture wasn’t ready to handle gay marriage maturely yet. It’s no coincidence that gay marriage was legalized just as a majority of Americans began to support it. Of course there will always be stragglers when it comes to progress who have to be dragged kicking and screaming. Try not being on the losing side of the constitution and social progress next time.

      1. Literally, the “stragglers” were prevailing in practically every democratic contest, and the courts were just steamrollering over them.

        You can think that a good thing if you want, you can think that this is a cause that would have democratically prevailed in a few years anyway, but that’s just the objective truth: SSM was imposed on the nation by the judiciary in the teeth of successful democratic opposition.

        1. Take it up with the constitution then. The Supreme Court declined to concoct a nonsense excuse for why it was OK for the government to treat gay people unequally under the law. It could have easily gone the other way, but thankfully freedom prevailed.

          1. I’m not entirely convinced that banning SSM is unConstitutional — the Supreme Court didn’t really make that great of a case of it, either. For a long time, the Supreme Court would make their decisions, and then try to twist Law and Constitution into that decision (assuming they put in any effort at all — sometimes they don’t).

            And I find it funny that you, of all people, are happy when freedom prevails.

    2. Nah.

      The SCOTUS may have lead on the issue, but it wasn’t by much. If the country in 2013 and 2015 had been of the same mind as it was in 2008, Windsor v. United States and Obergefel v. Hodges would have gone differently.

      So while it’s true that the SCOTUS declared SSM bans unconstitutional, it’s also entirely fair to suggest that they only did this because the trend line supported it.

      This isn’t like miscegenation laws, where the SCOTUS lead by a huge margin.

      1. So while it’s true that the SCOTUS declared SSM bans unconstitutional, it’s also entirely fair to suggest that they only did this because the trend line supported it.

        Considering one of the first-hand dissenters in the decision flat out said this is what was happening and at least two others agreed with him it would be fair to say that’s exactly what they were doing.

        1. Exactly what they thought they were doing, anyway: Getting ahead of the curve. I suppose they thought they were doing that with Roe v Wade, too.

          Is it their job to get out ahead of the curve? No. It’s their job to ignore the curve. If they pay any attention to it at all they’re doing their job wrong.

          But my point here is just to point out that Lukianoff had his history wrong. The courts imposed SSM on the nation, and only after did the polls support it. The courts were leading, not following.

  25. In fact, I respectfully submit that most complaining about cancel culture is insincere griping meant to convey “liberals are bad.”

    Let me translate this, from the original Bullshit-ese:

    “Conservatives have broadly — if imperfectly and inconsistently — accepted and internalized the older generation of liberals’ arguments in favor of free expression. Along the way, though, they’ve noticed that the current generation of leftists doesn’t, and increasingly tries to enforce ideological conformity by trying to get people fired or cast out of polite society over their expression of heterodox views. I really hate that they’re pointing this out, because as a man of the left I really hate them, so rather than concede they might have a point I’m going to harp on their imperfect and inconsistent fealty to principle and declare them all partisan frauds.”

  26. We need a new right: the right to separate our private lives from our public professions, unless those two things are inextricably bound, as in the limited cases of professions such as priesthood or politics. This means we should have a right to hold and express our opinions and even commit moral and legal transgressions free from the threat that we will lose our future employment merely because of this fact. The fact that I get in a bar room fight or call someone a name or express an unpopular opinion, for instance, has no bearing on my employment as a florist’s assistant. The flower company should have no power to fire me based on my personal actions, if ceteris paribus, I have performed my job admirably and committed no violation in the company name or on company grounds. While a priest may be fired for professing an allegiance to Satan in a public tweet, since her personal and private lives are bound together in the very nature of her job, most jobs are free from this binding. Individual liberty needs to be protected from the tyranny of the mob and the tyranny of corporate power operating as an extra-judicial punitive authority, as is the situation in which we currently live. Libertarians must choose, therefore, to limit corporations’ freedom to disinvest from individuals whose mere presence interferes with their bottom line in order to preserve individual freedom itself. This would be the only guarantee of free speech in a capitalist society, and it would eliminate “cancel culture” entirely, except of the traditional sort, where one individual may influence another to ignore or rebuke a third party.

    1. Correction: “While a priest may be fired for professing an allegiance to Satan in a public tweet, since her public and private lives are bound together in the very nature of her job, most jobs are free from this binding. Individual liberty needs to be protected from the tyranny of the mob and the tyranny of corporate power operating as an extra-judicial punitive authority, as is the situation in which we currently live.”

    2. In the 1990s when I was at a university I saw several things that relate to this. One was, a group of friends with a common hobby lived in a shared house managed by the campus. One afternoon while I was there, two other students who did not live there went in the unlocked front door, sat down on the couch and refused to leave. Campus police were called. A fist-fight ensued, a short, chubby campus police officer got his nose broken and eventually the two trespassers were taken into custody. The students were subjected to a disciplinary hearing and at least one was expelled from the university permanently. I had been visiting friends at the house at the time of the incident and was there for the fight. It was absolutely a stupid situation and the two students were (in my view) the instigators. However, that university was expensive and in expelling the one instigator (I don’t remember what happened to the other guy), they damaged the massive investment that someone had made in the kid’s education. That struck me as wrong at the time, because the punishment did not fit the crime at all. People losing their jobs over stuff they tweet or say in private occupies a similar category, to me.
      However, universities were the beginning of a lot of this because they occupy a strange intersection of landlord, employer and marketplace of ideas. In the 1990s that I remember, there was usually at least one incident that the campus papers would focus on, either at that campus or somewhere else, and there would be something like graffiti of racial slurs on the campus residence of a student of color. Or Campus Crusade for Christ versus the atheists, who could protest and how. Hate crime laws weren’t common then and somehow the fact that things occurred on “campus” removed any property right the targeted student(s) had, and so things were litigated on free speech rather than vandalism and harassment and were described as part of a “campus climate” rather than part of the society at large. The nebulous responsibility of universities contributed to this. It also absolutely served to create the impression in the student body that “free speech” is code for “it’s okay to attempt to intimidate people you disagree with.” Support of free speech became a tacit admission that “I am unwilling to criticize people who intimidate others.” Ergo, racist. I think there may have been a conscious movement on the right at the time to push the envelope on campus speech for religious purposes (it’s been nearly thirty years, but it seemed like that at the time, if I recall.) Also, it was a beginning of a Palestinian-awareness activism on campus, much of which walked all over whatever boundary exists between antisemitism and anti-Zionism.

      The backlash was a)against Christianity, b) against perceived anti-semitism and c) against free speech. The impression was created that all three were tools of assholes. Especially since the university curriculum was turning to criticize formerly untouchable cultural fortresses; I still remember “is there such a thing as classic literature”, what are our values, what are my values, ad infinitum. Long after I was out of school, the side-flank that had been chipping away at vestiges of “Christianity” in the curriculum met up with the “let’s deplatform the right” and joined forces to, oh, permanently cleanse the culture, I think.
      Free speech used to be a pro-left issue; it used to be, freedom to discuss communism. Along the way, identity got welded to speech such that it is assumed that only certain identities produce certain speech. If one wants to reduce those speech actions, it seems to stand to reason that one could reduce the presence of those identities and eliminate the speech. Of course, that’s a disaster and also inaccurate, since there is no absolute correlation between identity and speech. Reducing the presence of the identities that create the bad speech has absolutely been the goal of some people on the “campus left” for some time. I’d love that to not be the case, because when the targeted identity is the “white, Christian cis-het male,” that whole fracas distracts from the task of articulating situations that the range of people in the world really do face which are not identical and how to properly address it.
      I vaguely recall the idea of dialogue, how it existed before it was inexorably linked to identity. It is the side of identity that eats and needs shelter that is addressed now, since it is linked via the human body to the identity that allies itself to cultural trends and then commits speech acts. “If we can cancel enough members of certain identities, of course those bad speech acts will disappear and culture will be clean.” What could possibly go wrong.

  27. This comment section is hilarious.

    Fire someone for being gay? Legally permissible, who are we to judge, it’s their right, and that gay person should’ve found a better employer anyway.

    Fire someone for being anti-gay on Twitter? Twitter should be sued, this is a horrible person, this poor little angel of a person never did anything wrong hwy are you picking on them like this?

    Y’all crack me up.

    1. Do you get confused when a coin lands heads up *and* tails down too?

    2. It’s revealing neither of your hypotheticals is at issue.

    3. Pretty much.

      I bemused that the default for any labor contract is “we can fire for any damn reason we please”; completely orthogonal to any other type of contract I’m aware of. Conditions that aren’t expressly laid out in said contract (including termination and discharge) are, surprise, open to litigation.

      And while the litigation aspect is plainly obvious in the case of Twitter to some, through some alchemy it isn’t applicable to any other type of contract.

      Brilliant!

  28. The comment section is something else,lmao

    https://hiphopza.com/

  29. “Laws are maintained in credit, not because they are essentially just, but because they are laws. It is the mystical foundation of their authority; they have none other.” ~ Michel de Montaigne
    “When law and morality contradict each other the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his sense of morality or losing his respect of the law.” — Frederic Bastiat
    “Cancelling” can’t work if the behavior causing the attempted “cancelling” isn’t universally considered to be inappropriate.

  30. Cancel culture is nasty, but at the same time it represents progress from fighting these battles in the courts. Meaning, the battle for free speech has largely been won in the courts, and that’s a huge success (of course we must not get complacent as it can be quickly lost). So yes, don’t participate in cancel culture but at the same time, if you want to consider yourself a free speech warrior, don’t block people who you disagree with. Otherwise you can miss the early warning signs and it will be too late.

  31. Free speech?

    Try freedom of movement. You can move anywhere you want and even walk off skyscrapers — people actually have — but there will still, always, be unpopular ways to move … as well as people who do not want to be moved with you.

  32. Here is the full-blown quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
    ‘Republics abound in young civilians who believe that the laws make the city, that grave modifications of the policy and modes of living and employments of the population, that commerce, education and religion may be voted in or out; and that any measure, though it were absurd, may be imposed on a people if only you can get sufficient voices to make it a law. But the wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand which perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow and not lead the character and progress of the citizen; that the form of government which prevails is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a memorandum.’
    Sarkaari Result

  33. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….HERE? learn More

  34. I think what Ken, unfortunately misses is that the cancel culture that has become so prevalent on the modern left isn’t simply confined to express itself in lawful means that would be considered within the bounds of free speech…. but increasingly it’s come to express itself through acts of actual violence or threats of violence. Ben Shapiro didn’t need $600K in security in order to speak at UCLA because left wing activists threatened to boycott his sponsers.

    We can debate whether boycotts or demanding people be fired for their opinions is healthy or not in given situations but most of us can at least agree they fall within the bounds of speech. Getting hit with bike locks, having your windows broken, your building burned or your family threatened clearly don’t. These increasingly are the tools of the Left wing “woke” mob.

    Yes, these things are supposed to be unlawful but far too often in Leftist Enclaves whether they are campuses or deeply blue cities, the powers that be prevent law enforcement from enforcing those laws against the Left when they breach them against those on the Right. Sometimes this is due to political expediency, corruption and pandering by those powers on the Left… but increasingly I think it’s due to the notion that has been heavily pushed in Left Wing Academia over the past couple decades that offensive speech (or even thought) IS actual violence and justifies violence… particularly when the person offended by that speech is a member of a “protected class”.

    That is a notion both the mainstream Left and the Right used to be in agreement that was bogus. It’s becoming increasingly mainstream on the Left. It’s also important to note that’s where culture comes in. Both the creation of laws and their effective enforcement are dependent upon some commonly accepted notions. If those notions disappear… so effective do any legal protections that were based upon them.

    1. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

      For more details…… Cash Mony System

  35. I’d believe that our domestic Conservatives were sincere in the whining about censorship, if domestic Conservatives also advocated that their Religious Right Conservative competitors in ISIL/Daesh also be allowed to peddle their BS on college campuses/on social media without censorship – And if Conservatives demanded that Bernie, the Conservative media of investing, Madoff be set free because he only gave people his “opinion” that they would get their money back if they invested it with him.

    Also, if Conservatives are allowed to spew their never ending lies in order to defraud voters into voting for Conservatives vile evil murderous pro-pollution ideology – I should be able to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater in order to get better seats or call in a bomb threat to the doctor’s office if I’m running later for an appointment in order to hide the fact that I’m running late.

    1. At this point, it’s clear that Leftists want to shut Conservatives and Libertarians up, at all costs — to the point that they’ll eat their own, if it means shutting up someone they disagree with.

      I will believe that Leftists are sincere about protecting free speech when they stop doing that.

      1. Only one side is cheering the brutal government crackdown on peaceful speech.

        1. Since when does “peaceful speech” involve throwing explosives at buildings, rioting, murdering, and burning down businesses?

          Only one side is coming down condemning such “peaceful” speech. The other side is cheering it on, even though minorities are particularly hurt by this “speech”.

  36. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….COPY HERE====►► CLICK HERE

  37. The hypocrisy of cancel culture has corrupted the justice system.

    From a recent reason article, “ Last Thursday, Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle ruled in the group’s favor, finding Tennessee’s prohibition on “false speech” in election communications to be a violation of the First Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution.”

    From the benefit of an environment of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth the judge ruled that prohibiting lying violates 1a.

    So why doesn’t the hypocrite allow lying in court?

    Imagine that, all testimony could be lies and not a damned thing the court could do about it.

    That’s where cancel culture is taking us.

    1. What, none of you dipshits accusing me of destroying 1a have the balls to argue. Fuck you.

      1. Really? What a loser.

        1. That depends on your perspective.

          There are people who think discourse is about either agreement or bickering. This is the group including bigots, liars and cancel culture dipshits. Losing or winning to this group is only about their argument being accepted.

          The other group includes people who recognize that the purpose of argument is to reach a rational conclusion of truth which is winning regardless of whose argument it is.

          We have the agency to choose which perspective we have and which we disregard in others.

      2. I have provided two links in an above thread for you to refute.

        Fun fact: one of the two links is a transcript of a trial where a holocaust denier sued an author for libel. The holocaust denier lost.

        1. And I have soundly refuted their credibility.

          1. Just because you’re too stupid to figure out how to activate Zyclon B before tossing it into a window, doesn’t mean that it can’t be done.

            Indeed, this is similar to the most common conceit in cryptography: the creator convincing themselves that a custom-made cryptography technique is secure because the creator of the technique can’t crack it. Unfortunately for that creator, more often than not, anyone with sufficient knowledge of cryptography crack that cipher with ease.

            1. Really smarty pants.

              Where is the witness testimony that describes how zyklon b was heated and thrown in through the window?

              Once removed from heat zyklon b stops releasing cyanide. That’s science.

              1. It should be relatively easy to come up with a way to administer Zyklon B to a room through a window, if you know how to release the cyanide from Zyclon B. That’s engineering.

                And you don’t need direct witness testimony about this particular to establish that this is what happened. You just need enough witnesses about what was going on generally, corroborated by documentation and physical evidence. That’s forensic science.

                1. Let’s see. It only releases cyanide when heated. As soon as it’s thrown through one of many open windows into a cold wet shower house guess what, no cyanide.

                  How fucking stupid are you?
                  That’s it. Your source says that’s how it was done and it could never work. Unless your saying that your own source is lying, the holocaust lie is BUSTED.

                2. Forensic science. Ha

                  The thing about forensic science is that it’s objective.

                  Objective review of the holocaust is a crime in EVERY nation where forensic science could be applied.

                  1. I have just looked up activation temperature for Zyklon B. It activates at 28 degrees Celcius. Room temperature is 25 degrees Celcius.

                    You expect me to believe that it’s all that difficult to warm up a room so that Zyklon B can be activated?

                    And you are wrong about objective review of the holocaust being a crime in every nation that it’s applied. You can go to the sites yourself, and examine the rubble; and holocaust deniers have done their own forensic science. (Albeit, their techniques were flawed — but I’m not surprised by this.)

                    But, above all, if the holocaust never happened, then where does all this other evidence, forensic or otherwise, come from?

                    There’s mountains of it. Where did it all come from, if it didn’t really happen?

                  2. Come to think of it, there’s this little thing known in Criminal Law called “Consciousness of Guilt” evidence. The idea is simple: if you shoot someone, then flee, and hide from the police, destroy evidence, and lie about your whereabouts, these are not the actions of an innocent person. This is evidence, in your own mind that you killed people.

                    Now, why did the Nazis try to destroy those buildings when they knew the Allies were nearing Auwschwitz? Weren’t they mere showers? Shouldn’t the guards have been happy to show how well they kept the prisoners clean?

                    Yet, not only did they blow them up, these same “showers”, oddly enough, have the same blue hue that de-lousing chambers had.

                    I’m going to stop arguing with you. We’re just arguing over pedantic details. But the fact is, the Nazis were guilty of mass murder, and they knew they were guilty of mass murder, and they did everything in their power to hide their guilt — but their crime was so large, they couldn’t keep it hidden.

                    And it’s pathetic that a handful of people, through half-truths and lies by omission, repeated over and over again, think they can make the truth go away.

                    1. Room Temperature is between 15 and 25•C.

                      Zyklon activates at 28•C or 78.5•F.

                      The shower houses were UNHEATED and there was no air circulation unless the WINDOWS were open.

                      Zyklon took 2 to 12 hours to work Under optimal conditions and 10 hours to vent before anyone could enter.

                      There is NO WAY this supports the holocaust narrative of 6000 Jews per day at Auschwitz. It’s impossible. BUSTED

                      If zyklon was thrown in a window below 78.5•F nothing would happen to anyone for hours, soon people would push it away and open the windows.

                      Do the math. It’s IMPOSSIBLE. BUSTED.

                    2. “Do the math. It’s IMPOSSIBLE. BUSTED.”

                      Fun fact: it’s not at all difficult to make a room 78.5F. Indeed, I have been in situations (usually involving a lot of people in a small space) where it’s been a challenge to get the temperature below this temperature, even with open windows, doors, and a fan.

                      “Impossible”. This word does not mean what you think it means.

                    3. Furthermore, if Zyklon B is as difficult to use as you make it seem, I can’t help but wonder why the Nazis would have used it for de-lousing. There are obviously easier techniques available.

  38. Making­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear Here══════❥❥❥❥ CLICK For More Details

  39. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….HERE? Read More

  40. What a crock. The whole free speech / cancel culture topic is a huge joke. Never in the history of the universe has free speech been more protected than it is right now in the United States. The current paranoia boils down to elites not liking the fact that the plebeians now have the internet and can broadcast their opinions widely. Sounds like democracy to me!

    1. A right isn’t protected if you can be persecuted by anyone for exercising it.

      What else does “protection” mean?

      People are being persecuted all over the place for what they say. This is the weapon of the cancel culture.

      If we protected 1a we, by law, wouldn’t let them.

      1. No one is being persecuted. Challenged, sure, but persecuted, not even close! Challenging positions is itself free speech. Just elites whining because they’ve lost their soap box monopoly.

        1. People are being fired from their employment, kicked out of professional associations and boycotted for simply exercising 1a.

          That is coercion and persecution.

          1. Then they should challenge such actions in court. If they truly are only exercising 1A rights, then they will prevail. It’s clear, however, that you don’t have a good grasp of what precisely 1A protects.

            1. I clearly demonstrated how 1a is not protected.

              You certainly haven’t refuted that.

              Violating our rights is committing a crime that should be punished. Court is only required if there is a question of guilt or to determine the sentence.

  41. It’s simple. S.230 is a good start. Treat sites like FB, YouTube, Twitter, … like papermakers or printers. Not responsible for what authors put online AS LONG AS THEY DO NO EDITING!!!!. Also, Not responsible to viewers except as agreed by contract with parameters controlled by customer. It can be done. Just compare to how written books on paper are treated. That’s the secret to internet policy. Compare it to equivalents that already have a large body of law surrounding them.

  42. Canon printers are one of the essentials in every office as well as households. To start using your Canon product you can read all the required information at Ij.Start.Canon.
    https://canon-comijsetup.me/

  43. Cashapp Service is an online platform that provides world-class assistance service on Cashapp Login, using the app and other services related to the app. Just give our experts a call and they will resolve your queries in a blink.
    https://cashappservice.me/

  44. Very efficiently written information. It will be beneficial to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep up the good work. For sure i will check out more posts. This site seems to get a good amount of visitors

  45. I really enjoy reading from your blog, Nice post all through.
    Fakaza

Comments are closed.