First Amendment

Prince Harry's First Amendment Aversion Is Funny; the Governments That Agree Are Scary

We expect British royals to favor muzzling commoners, but too many lawmakers feel the same way.

|

The appropriate reaction to criticism of constitutionally protected rights by a member of the British royal family is certainly an eyeroll. After all, we fought a revolution to make sure British aristocrats would no longer have a say over the freedoms Americans exercise, so the reminder that we dodged a bullet on that front is no surprise. What is more concerning, though, is that opposition to free-wheeling speech is more widely shared among people who are in a position to impose a disgruntled prince's vision of good policy on the world at large.

Prince Harry's comments came on the May 13 episode of actor Dax Shepard's Armchair Expert podcast. As the Hollywood- and Hollywood-adjacent celebrities commiserated about the awfulness of the paparazzi and their behavior, the wayward prince mused about the legal framework that allows intrusions into the private lives of famous people.

[42:50] I don't want to start sort of going down the First Amendment route because that's a huge subject and one which I don't understand because I've only been here for a short period of time. But you can find a loophole in anything. And you can capitalize or exploit what's not said rather than uphold what is said….If there's an ideology or you want to spread hate. Laws were created to protect people, right? That's how I see it.

[44:50] I've got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I still don't understand it. But it is bonkers.

As difficult as it is to sympathize with wealthy people who make a living from high-profile lives whining about the folks who provide publicity, there's not much peril in them either. Prince Harry, after all, left the life of a human poodle in the United Kingdom to take on the role of a less-responsible show dog in the United States. He's no danger to our liberty, though he is a remarkably un-self-aware reminder that his ancestors once did pose a threat with similar sniffy views about "bonkers" freedoms.

But Prince Harry's old-school dismissal of free speech protections finds its echo among equally sniffy modern legal theorists who agree with inconvenienced aristocrats that the First Amendment is a Very Bad Thing and that speech should be subject to greater restrictions.

"Instead of thinking about content moderation through an individualistic lens typical of constitutional jurisprudence, platforms, regulators, and the public at large need to recognize that the First Amendment–inflected approach to online speech governance that dominated the early internet no longer holds," writes Harvard Law School lecturer Evelyn Douek in an April 2021 Columbia Law Review article. "Instead, platforms are now firmly in the business of balancing societal interests and choosing between error costs on a systemic basis."

The catalyst for this shift away from First Amendment-style speech protection by the tech giants was COVID-19, claims the Australian academic, who approves of the transformation. She sees lasting effects beyond social media. "The state of emergency that platforms invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic is subsiding, and lawmakers are poised to transform the regulatory landscape," Douek adds.

Douek cites a pre-pandemic paper by Harvard Law School's Jonathan Zittrain who unintentionally anticipated the impact of COVID-19 when he observed that the treatment of speech is moving to a "public health framework [that] is much more geared around risks and benefits than around individual rights."

Among the lawmakers treating speech as a health threat are French President Emmanuel Macron and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who have joined together with other political and tech leaders to demand tighter regulation of online speech. New Zealand's prime minister, in particular, wants digital media companies to implement "ethical algorithms" to steer people away from material of which the authorities disapprove and toward content that they prefer.

"Let's have that conversation around the ethical use of algorithms, and how they can use be used in a positive way and for positive interventions," Ardern last week told a conference of participants in Christchurch Call, which advocates for greater control over online content.

Ardern faces opposition at home, where the libertarian ACT party, which won 10 of 120 seats in the October 2020 election, makes free speech a major part of its platform and its opposition to the governing Labour Party. That was already a demanding job in a country that has an official national censorship office, and hasn't become easier in a pandemic-shocked world grown accustomed to "emergency" incursions into individual rights.

But Christchurch Call, co-founded by the governments of France and New Zealand, wins a friendly reception elsewhere. The European Union has long been on-board with speech controls and had no objection to endorsing the effort. Over 50 governments and most of the big tech companies have also signed on.

"YouTube is committed to the #ChristchurchCall," CEO Susan Wojcicki tweeted May 14. "We continue to strengthen our policies, improve transparency, and restrict borderline content. We look forward to continuing to work with the Call community."

Also endorsing the Christchurch Call is the government of the United States, land of "bonkers" constitutional protections for personal freedom.

"The United States endorses the Christchurch Call to Action to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online, formally joining those working together under the rubric of the Call to prevent terrorists and violent extremists from exploiting the Internet," the U.S. State Department announced on May 7. The statement went on to promise that "the United States will not take steps that would violate the freedoms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment," but that's going to be hard to square with a mandate for "ethical algorithms" intended to nudge people away from ideas frowned on by officialdom.

But a vision of a First Amendment somehow reconciled with restrictions on speech might just be bonkers enough to win the favor of resentful celebrities and displaced royals. Prince Harry apparently has some time on his hands and could be available as a spokesman for the cause.

NEXT: One Night in Miami

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.

  1. You know who else felt there should be more restrictions on the First Amendment? OBL knows.

    1. Indeed, after reading the headline I felt compelled to point out that critics of the First Amendment include Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky.

      #BringBackBerlatsky
      #LibertariansFor1ARestrictions

      1. Making money online more than 15$ 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…..VISIT HERE

      2. Wow that article was awful. Does the author really consider himself a libertarian?

        1. USA Making money online more than 15$ 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 DD 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…..VISIT HERE

    2. The Supreme Court?

      1. My real time work with face book I am making over $2000 a month operating low maint­enance. I continued h­earing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it.tyh All topics considered, it become all legitimate and has without a doubt changed my life.

        For more statistics visit below site here… Home Profit System

    3. Mizek?

    4. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months.I amerrerer very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.Just visit this

      website . ☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ Visit Here

  2. The First Amendment loophole must be closed!

  3. I’m all for dunking on a royal and it’s deserved here as well, but to be fair his mother died while being chased by paparazzi. We all have strong and probably sometimes irrational notions when it comes to our moms.

    As a side note, I don’t understand the public’s obsession with celebrity that leads to even having paparazzi. I mean, why give a fuck.

    1. I don’t understand the public’s obsession with celebrity that leads to even having paparazzi.

      I don’t either. That includes the drive to become one of those “celebrities”. I wouldn’t be able to stand such a life; not being able to go for a walk without swarms of assholes chasing me around would make me, as Harry would put it, bonkers.

      I think it was Fred Allen who quipped about people desperately trying to be famous and then going around incognito so they wouldn’t be recognized.

      1. Yeah, this reminds me of Curt Kobain. Dude spent his entire life trying to get his musical career going, gets it going gangbusters, and then whines about being famous for it to the point where he pussies out and eats a shotgun.

        1. The dude couldn’t admit that he was a fucking hypocrite poser, so he killed himself out of sheer solipsism.

          I’m not a big fan of Courtney Love because she’s a total psychopath, but her bashing on him when she was reading the suicide note was completely justified.

          1. loved Hole.

          2. He probably killed himself because of severe depression. Like almost everyone who commits suicide. Whinging about his fame was just another symptom.

            1. Don’t forget the addiction.

    2. Oh, come on – we all know the mysterious motorcycle in the tunnel was sent by the Queen and the “accident” was a cleverly staged assassination, the paparazzi had nothing to do with it other than being set up as the fall guy.

    3. I support Harry Winsor’s 1A right to say dumb stuff.

      1. OH SO YOU DON’T SUPPORT MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO CRITICIZE HIM THOUGH.

        1. You’re making his point for him. Idiot

          1. Pretty sure it was intentional.

            1. always close with Idiot though just in case lol

            2. Poe Dan.

      2. He actually came out and said that Megan wanted to kill herself in the late stages of her pregnancy, but didn’t because, as she supposedly said, she “didn’t want to take another woman out of his life.”

        I mean, what the fuck? Harry revealed this under the pretext that it would make Megan appear sympathetic, but all it shows is that she’s a manipulative sociopath who’s using Harry’s childhood trauma to control him.

        1. And, you know, it’s time for Harry to get over it. LOTS OF PEOPLE SUFFER CHILDHOOD TRAGEDY and somehow manage to get on with life. Pool li’l Harry. C’mon!

    4. The paparazzi were chasing a decoy car. The crash happened because their driver was drunk

      1. This,,,
        Well, everyone in the car was hammered. The driver was in good company.

    5. She died because she didn’t buckle up a seatbelt while riding in a car going in excess of 90 mph through a crowded city.

      1. exactly she was behind tinted glass, they could have drove 5 miles and hour and ended up where the paparazzi knew she was going anyway.

      2. They keep calling her Princess Di, but given the outcome and the amount of time that has passed, should we now refer to her as Princess Dead?

        1. According to quite a few who knew the royals, the sum total of the IQs were not going to cook a roast, and she was considered by *them* as being a low-watt-bulb.
          So how about Princess Dim?

    6. What does freedom of speech and 1A have to do with an intoxicated limo driver that killed his mother?

      1. Nothing, as you observe, thats a Troll attempting to create False Cause and Effect.

    7. But he’s not talking about that. He’s talking about hate speech. Content online. His mother was chased to her death in France, and the word “paparazzi” is Italian. It happened before MySpace – let alone Twitter or FB. I don’t see the connection.

      If she died because people online said she was a danger to democracy or some crap and she was subsequently assassinated, ok. But that isn’t what happened.

      1. Harry’s clearly being gaslit by his uber-bitch wife.

      2. That’s a s-t-r-e-t-c-h. Not talking about a limousine.

    8. “I don’t understand the public’s obsession with celebrity that leads to even having paparazzi.”

      I don’t understand why celebrities flee paparazzi when they are out and about. At most you have to walk around them, but the paparazzi have as much right to be out in public as anyone. Admittedly there are paparazzi who violate boundaries and laws. Seems to me, the paparazzi avoiding celebrities are that way because they want to project a false image due to their flaws. Or perhaps like Trump, they’re tired of fake disparaging reports about themselves, which should be met with more speech about the journalists. But paparazzi just take pictures AFAIK.

    9. Harry might be stupid enough to equate the First Amendment with paparazzi, but his criticism is targeted at America’s free speech specifically, while the paparazzi that hounded his mother were all European.

      It’s a poor association.

  4. “Prince Harry, after all, left the life of a human poodle in the United Kingdom to take on the role of a less-responsible show dog in the United States.”

    Someone REALLY doesn’t like the royal family.

    1. Or someone is realistic about the royals role in Britain. They have no jobs and spend days opening schools, making speeches, and earnestly trying not to make any political statements. Sounds like show ponies to me.

      1. They are England’s richest welfare family.

        1. That sums it up entirely.

    2. Go get Busy Bee!

      1. Peanut, walnut, pine nut, macadamia nut . . .

    3. And? There is no reason the Royal Family deserves adoration in the country that fought to cast off it’s influence. Especially when said Royal Family has no turned to advocating against basic foundational rights of said country, namely the right to say what they want, up to and forever including calling the royal family a bunch of jumped up useless charity cases.

      1. Now*

    4. No he’s still a poodle. His paparazzi addicted wife dragged him to paparazzi central and he’s complaining. He’s the Duke of Suckass or something and needs to move back there and raise sheep. He also needs to practice this line, “POW, RIGHT IN THE KISSER!”

  5. “The catalyst for this shift away from First Amendment-style speech protection by the tech giants was COVID-19”

    No, it was the wrong person becoming president.

    1. And the drooling morons on both sides of the Atlantic will fill the Atlantic Ocean Basin with their moron-drool, lusting after the demise of Section 230 and-or similar provisions… Because… Because suing-punishing-fining Reason.com for “publishing” the writings of R Mac (for example) will “fix” it all! Don’t like what R Mac wrote? Sue Reason.com! Yeah, morons, THAT will fix it!

      “The Sound Of Despots”

      Hello darkness, my old friend, I’ve come to talk with you again
      Because a nightmare in jackboots, left its seeds while I was sleeping
      And the nightmare that was planted in my brain, still remains
      Within the sound of despots

      In nightmares I ran alone, narrow streets of cobblestone
      Neath the halo of a streetlamp, I turned my collar to the cold and damp
      When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of an orange blight, split the night
      And touched the sound of despots

      And in their naked greed I saw, millions of sheeple, maybe more
      Sheeple talking without speaking, sheeple hearing without listening
      Sheeple’s thoughts, sanity never shared, and no one dared
      To question the despots!

      Fool, said I, you do not know, despots, like a cancer, grows
      Hear my words and I might teach you, take my arms then I might reach you
      But my words, like silent raindrops fell, and echoed in the wells of despots

      And the morons bowed and prayed to the orange god they’d made
      And the sign flashed its warning in the words that it was forming
      And the sign said the words of the despots are written in the Biggest Lies
      And tenement halls, and shouted, in the sounds of despots

      This poetry inspired by the REAL facts of a REAL nightmare!
      https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
      Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

      1. So say we all!

      2. All those wars Trump started were based on lies.

        1. Literally WW3.

          1. Well no, Der TrumpfenFuhrer did NOT manage to start WW III, and so this PROVES that we should believe His Big Lies about voter fraud, and give Him His Dickstatorshit back, that he did NOT really-actually win, this time around!

            Also, because an “Expert Christian Theologian” (who justifies ID theft and lying) in Canuckistanistanistanistanistan says so, we should hand over democracy to transition to mobocracy, in obedience to Trumpanzees gone apeshit! All Hail Inner Islamic Canuckistanistanistanistanistan, which knows best, what is good for the USA!

            1. he was such a dictator that the media freely and openly called him all sorts of names without fear. Contrast to Chocolate Jesus who had journos under DoJ surveillance and the Potato President who holds his dog washers in disdain.

              1. ONLY because Der TrumpfenFuhrer did NOT get His Way!

                https://thehill.com/homenews/media/486273-trump-escalates-fight-against-press-with-libel-lawsuits
                Trump escalates fight against press with libel lawsuits

                MUCH more of the same has been reported!

              2. Did you catch Chocolate Monks recent exposure of his childish and vile nature, using all kind of profanity and such to describe a President of the US?

                Thats taking the high ground for sure!

            2. Tell us about the violent insurrection where a Capitol Police officer was murdered.

              1. Tell us about you LYING about cop being murdered.

                He died of natural causes, you pathetic lying piece of excrement

                https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56810371

                1. From your source:

                  However, he did acknowledge the policeman’s role in the events, telling the Washington Post: “All that transpired played a role in his condition.”

                  They couldn’t PROVE that he was murdered… NOT the same as proving that he was NOT murdered! Elementary logic, hello?

                  You can not PROVE the L. Ron Hubbard wasn’t the Son of God! So then, L. Ron Hubbard WAS the Son of God!

                  Drooling moron!

                  1. Straw goal posts.

                    1. My goal is to show that power-lusting Trumptards slobber over the prospect of getting MOAH POWAH for themselves, at ANY costs! Ethics, principles, people, law and order, a decent future for most people… ALL can and WILL be sacrificed for MOAH POWAH for Trumpturds!

                      READ the below and hang your tiny brainless, power-lusting shit-head in SHAME for always taking the side of Trumpanzees, power-luster-pig!

                      https://www.jpost.com/international/kill-him-with-his-own-gun-dc-cop-talks-about-the-riot-655709
                      ‘Kill him with his own gun’ – DC cop talks about Capitol riot
                      DC Police officer Michael Fanone: I had a choice to make: Use deadly force, which would likely result with the mob ending his life, or trying something else.

                      “Pro-law-and-order” Trumpturds take the side of trumpanzees going apeshit, making cops beg for their lives! For trying to defend democracy against mobocracy! Can you slime-wads sink ANY lower?!?!

                    2. Do Ashli Babbitt. Mix in some ALL CAPS rage too. Thanks squirrel.

                    3. spaz once more.

                    4. “Ashli Babbitt”. Don’t wanna be a power-grabbing, lawmaker-threatening barbarian savage tearing down the gates to methodical, deliberative-representational-democracy, in a “law and order” land? Then DON’T be a power-pig dickstatorshit-loving despotic slime-slut! When democracy (which has NO obligation to commit organizational suicide) defends itself, power-slut(s), do NOT come crying to me, expecting support or sympathy for what you have brought down upon yourself! Self-defense (individually or organizationally) is or can be (and was in this case) legitimate!

                    5. OBL is a better parody account but you do get some all-star votes squirrel. Fwiw, the North Korean judge gave you a 10.0.

                  2. and again

                2. I was injecting sarcasm at the squirrel’s expense.

                3. “Tell us about you LYING about cop being murdered.”

                  Re-set sarc meter.

              2. Brian Sicknick (“say his name”, dammit! He was a living, breathing human!) died of causes TOTALLY unrelated to him being abused and bear-sprayed? In a life of 40 some years, he RANDOMLY died 2 days or so after being attacked? What is the calculated probability of that?

                I could also tell you that the Earth is roughly spherical. If you are a devoted flat-Earther, I would be wasting my time. As I apparently am now, trying to convince an Orange-Dick-Sucker that orange-dick-sucking leads to NO good outcomes!

                1. Flag for spaz

                2. Don’t worry, there will be more violence. I’m betting it will take someone important being assassinated before Congress gets out of its Joe Manchin-shaped hole and does something meaningful about the imminent threat to the survival of the United States.

                  Of course if Trumpers can be in denial about an attack on Congress instigated in the name of Donald Trump during the electoral college recount where people, on camera, pursued the vice president and members of Congress in an attempted murder and coup, they can probably justify anything to themselves.

                  1. “…where people, on camera, pursued the vice president and members of Congress in an attempted murder and coup,..”

                    It’s not in doubt that shitstain here actually believes that steaming pile of shit!
                    The protesters were going to murder them and succeed in a coup armed with ny-ties!
                    Our military should be hiring them for advice!

            3. Spaz flag

      3. Spaz-flag

      4. I’ve decided I am not going to mute you squirrel; you’re just not mean or malicious. Crazy, yes, but always entertaining.

        1. Honest to God, I thought sqrlsy was a Hihn sock until Hihn died and sqrlsy kept posting.

          1. I’ve accused Squirrel of being Hihn, but as I remember “Michael” he was a mean, malicious son of a bitch. Squirrel is not.

        2. You, of course, do you, but in my experience thus far, it’s been *so* worth it.

      5. Let’s find out how that “Mute User” button works …

        … Does it cover all SockPuppets along the line?

        1. I’ve used it on the likes of Arty and KAW, who contribute nothing here in their endless effort to instigate pointless conflict; I no longer see them, but I do see the often clever responses and you immediately know who they are. Win/win.

          It really has “cleaned up” much of the useless chaff you used to see, and [at least for me] seems to have ushered in an atmosphere of civility; which is something no troll wants.

  6. Prince Harry’s First Amendment Aversion Is Funny; The Governments That Agree Are Scary

    Prince Harry represents the views of the majority of the modern woke under 40 crowd; that is what you should be scared of, because they determine election outcomes and will be future leaders.

    Governments in the West just represent the will of the people, and New Zealanders, the French, and the British people don’t care about free speech or any other liberal/libertarian principles.

    1. The second sentence sums it up. The under forty, woke/cancel cult crowd could care less about free speech as they are easily offended.
      They are products of Marxist education taught in Public schools. There is no further elucidation needed on that subject.
      And yes, it is of great concern they will soon obtain control of America, after which you can kiss all your rights goodbye. That is unless you want to become a tranny.

  7. Douek cites a pre-pandemic paper by Harvard Law School’s Jonathan Zittrain who unintentionally anticipated the impact of COVID-19 when he observed that the treatment of speech is moving to a “public health framework [that] is much more geared around risks and benefits than around individual rights.”

    The idea that the people of the nation constitute an organism and it is the job of the government to keep this organism healthy is core defining view of fascism.

    These people aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.

    1. It is sickening.

    2. “geared around risks and benefits than around individual rights.””

      Id agree. INdividual risk and benefit

      There, fixed it.

      Damned commies keep trying!

  8. lots of peopls are left thier job and life cause of covid-19 in india as well. also now lots people are died cause of black fongas …so we are try to do our best from our side if any want to learn about digital marketing so learn digital marketing https://all4techs.com/

  9. “Let’s have that conversation around the ethical use of algorithms,”

    “and then we’ll implement them at the point of a gun.”

  10. I care nothing of what any non citizen or leftie shits think. Their mental illness is not my problem.

  11. the life of a human poodle”
    i love that and your right he was pure virtue signaling by his parent total arm candy for teh masses because they were required to have offspring no matter who the father is and I think his father is not who he thinks he is

  12. Anyone with real or perceived power in politics favors muzzling the proles. The story here is a guy broadcasting his ignorance about 1A but commenting anyway, while simultaneously saying it’s a bad idea. This person may well be irretrievably broken.

    1. WOrse, he has an Enabler….great Watery Tart wife

  13. This quote from Reagan has been posted several times recently, but certainly bears repeating.

    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

    And do we not already have enough of our own chattering celebrity douche bags? Why have we been saddled with another from GB?

    1. I thought he was living in Canada.

      1. Close enough, and commenting on the US Constitution.

      2. They’ve been living in L.A. for about a year now. They were only in Canada for a few months.

  14. Harry Windsor and the rest of the Hanoverians can bugger off to where they came from. Too bad Culloden didn’t go the other way.

    1. Who made them royalty anyway? The entire sham of royal bloodline related to the Grail are nothing more than hocus pocus.
      All of it entirely made up. None of it factual.
      Just consider what happened to the Hapsburgs after centuries of inbreeding.
      To come up with the fairy tale that these people, somehow, by the grace of a certain invisible deity occupying some large office in the sky, declared them to be, by his decree, royalty and certified to continue that claim in perpetuity.
      Talk about sheer rubbish!

  15. “huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here for a short period of time. ”

    Is he a moron, deliberatey or accidentally?

    What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED takes a PHd to figure out?

    Hes lying by playing a game called Manufacturing Doubt.

    And notice her fake angelic pose, shes NOT looking at him with adoration, shes playing for the camera. Pathetic piece of crap she is.

    Shes a Royal all right, a Royal Asshole.

    1. “What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED takes a PHd to figure out?”

      The part that knows that’s the 2nd Amendment, not the 1st.

    2. troll. youre muted. get lost

  16. The only problem with the 1A is that MEDIA CORPORATIONS think they have it.

    They do not. Rights are INDIVIDUAL Rights, not Corporate.

    Part of the War of 1776 was to chase the rotten, corrupt Corporations, that were in bed with the King, out of our new Nation.

    And I note that Dickw&&d is certainly here USING our First Amendment to make a Royal Ass of himself, isnt he?

    Damn Hypocrite. He needs to get rid of Medusa.

    1. Nowhere in the 1A is free speech restricted to individuals.

    2. No, the first amendment is a limitation on government powers. It’s protections apply to anyone and anything. It says what it says, regardless of your musings on the nature of rights.

    3. Can corporations pay taxes, but not have rights?

      1. red herring fail

        1. Corporate personhood understanding fail

          1. Try looking past the letter of the law (as determined by 5 fat assholes in black robes) and make an argument for how the world should be.

            Is it a good thing or a bad thing that corporations can effectively own shares of Congress?

            1. “Try looking past the letter of the law (as determined by 5 fat assholes in black robes) and make an argument for how the world should b”

              Shitstain here prefers we accept the intent of the law as determined by a steaming pile of lefty shit too stupid to recognize his fantasy world from reality.

  17. “”The United States endorses the Christchurch Call to Action to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online, formally joining those working together under the rubric of the Call to prevent terrorists and violent extremists from exploiting the Internet,” the U.S. State Department announced on May 7. The statement went on to promise that “the United States will not take steps that would violate the freedoms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment,””

    Remember the line from the song that went:

    “set up like a bowling pin
    knocked down, its wearing thin..”

    This is a Corporate Mission Statement type remark that is clearly contradictory (what DoJ has said)

    They have Officially stated that they WILL infringe on Speech, but they wont.

    The way to read that is :

    “If we infringe on Free Speech, then under Adolph Hitlers doctrine of “The End Justifies the Means” that if WE do it, its not infringement because we had a really good reason…”

    Psychopathic Manipulators.

    1. Correction, DoS…not DoJ

    2. Was that Hitler’s doctrine? I though Marx came up with that shit.

      -jcr

      1. i think they shared more than that in their incestuous relationship.

        I believe the EJTM is from Jesuit philisophy.

    3. If you think the Christchurch Call is bad you should get a load of Biden’s latest gift to America, a pre crime advocacy called…..wait for it: Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3), run by everybody’s fave, the DHS. Or as it was known in the last century as the KGB.
      Guess what? Everyone commenting here is now on their list of domestic terrorist threats.
      There now, doesn’t that make yo feel so safe?

  18. stop giving these morons press. mho.

  19. And this is why deciding censorship is totally fine as long as it is only done by private companies is bonkers. As people often point out (rightly), government is a lagging indicator. What starts in the private market will spread to the government – either as proposed policy or as a new thing to declare a war on. War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Misinformation…

    Play it out, people. I’m alarmed by any social tendency towards censorship because I value freedom. I don’t care what Twitter does so much as I recognize that the government may decide that Twitter has it right, and that if enough people with money decide it is right, they will elect and influence politicians to follow their lead.

    The whole “stuff is fine as long as the government isn’t doing it” mentality is short-sighted. Or, you know, bonkers.

    And how do you not love a posh uber-rich royal talking about something while saying he doesn’t understand it? “I don’t know anything about this thing except I know it’s bad.”

    1. As a libertarian, I support the right of private companies to censor stuff people post on their platform, as the alternative involves government forcing you to not censor. What’s wrong with censoring child porn, advertising bots, or political bots if users don’t want them? IMHO, the better response would be to abandon platforms that obviously do censor political speech such as Twitter, Facebook and Google.

      Unfortunately, a problem exists that the government has too much power over commerce and uses that power to pressure companies to do things that help the politicians essentially run extortion schemes on its political enemies or pay to play carrots with their political friends.

      I sympathize with how you feel, I don’t like them censoring political speech or deciding what is accurate, and I wouldn’t censor if I ran one of those companies [I would remove content the government requires that I remove, e.g. if someone wins a defamation lawsuit against a poster or the government tells me the content is illegal such as child porn]. I don’t see this as something that started in the free market and spread to the government, rather it’s just more government control and intervention in the market.

      1. “What’s wrong with censoring child porn, advertising bots, or political bots if users don’t want them?”

        Left wing moderators dont do those things. Did you just discover the internet this week?

      2. “As a libertarian, I support the right of private companies to censor stuff people post on their platform, as the alternative involves government forcing you to not censor…”

        Much as the market isn’t a perfect economic system, just the best we have, we’ve got the same choice here.
        If you wish to keep companies from making those selections, you’re going to have to hand it over to the folks with guns, and with *NO* possibility of competition.
        No, thanks.

  20. Harry, she’s not a particularly good actress. You should know that she’s faking it.

  21. Went to Christchurch Call. Meaningless glop endlessly repeating “terrorist and violent extremist” with no definitions, no clear policy, no anything as to what would be done. All promulgated by those two baby fascists, Jacinda Ardern and Emmanuel Macron. Completely anti-freedom, completely government power over speech.

  22. Perhaps the editor wrote the headline, as Tucille never explained how “Prince Harry’s First Amendment Aversion is Funny”, as I don’t see it as funny.

    What seems obvious to me, is that the Royals are partly against freedom of speech because they don’t like to be the subject of gossip that is often untrue, or true and revealing personal flaws they don’t want the public to know, and they’d like the government to stop it.

    Also obvious, Harry didn’t get a good education showing he couldn’t articulate the reasons for the First Amendment. Did he ever learn “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me”? Or perhaps his teachers protected him from “hurtful” words explaining the immoral ways they governed the American colonies, leading to the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and the First Amendment, learning Americans wanted independence and King George lost the war instead. That avoids looking at the proper scope of government, and the overreach of the UK and US governments.

    1. theyre just mad bc. they lost!

  23. Thank God that Harry is no longer in the running ever to be a king.

  24. “Let’s have that conversation around

    If you tell Adern “I’m not having any conversation with you, go eff yourself”, she’ll denounce you as an extremist and impose her preferred policies anyway.

    “Let’s have that conversation around…” is how fascists start justifying their policies these days, that’s all.

    1. The Trojan Horse didnt say ” trojan horse” on a sign on its front. It read ” vehucle for intelligent interpersonal discourse.”

      Deceptive phrasing, brainwashing, attempting to make people into submissive children are all markers of Cult programming.

  25. So I guess Harry really wants to get his ass beat for wearing that Nazi costume all those years ago, right? I mean, you just need one snowflake to whine that it “hurt” to see harry wearing a swastika, and harry becomes deplorable, right?

    Seriously, fuck that inbred jackass and the fifth-rate actress he rode in on.

    -jcr

  26. can this %÷!÷@$&€ site have any MORE VIDEO POPUPS?

  27. “[44:50] I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment” well…not if you have anything to say about it…

  28. download paid premium unity assets free at https://incern.net

  29. The U.S. government is also a supporter of the “Christchurch Call” (Christchurch Call), and the U.S. government has implemented the “Bunker” constitutional protection for personal freedom
    https://www.orologilusso.eu/

  30. The University system has no impact on the ideologies of future generations.

  31. The First Amendment protects nearly all forms of speech including what might be called insurrection, racist, foul, profane, obscene, in poor taste and obtuse. Even stupid and uninformed.
    However, once a nation heads down the path of censorship and the persecution of those who may have said something somewhere,at some time, someone finds offensive or hateful, then it’s a very fast decline into authoritarianism and the loss of all forms of speech that does not pass muster with those in power.
    The cancel cult that permeated college campuses has now infected all forms of life including where you work. This has become an extremist act unto itself. The people behind it are themselves extremists for they wish to control others speech in arbitrary manner.
    The First Amendment gives me the right to tell Harry, if he doesn’t like the First Amendment then he and his third rate actress wife can swiftly move their behinds back to the U.K. where there is no First Amendment and no rights…only a totalitarian police state. A nation that clings to a rancid, worn out despotic family that should have faced the guillotine centuries ago. when are the people of the U.K. going to grow up and join the 21st century? Dump the the royals like a bad habit.

    1. College students are not restricted by the First Amendment. They are protected by it. Canceling is free speech too.

      Women and minorities were “canceled” by their culture, and often their government, for centuries. All of a sudden “cancel culture” is a problem the moment fat, stupid white assholes get called out for being cunty racists.

      What a sad joke you people are.

      1. No. it’s when spoiled, whinny millennials and other assorted self absorbed little brats complain about being offended by something some one said, even if it was the truth.
        You obviously are one of those types.
        Canceling is NOT free speech. It is a vindictive action that ruins people’s lives, gets people fired from their job and their career, simply because some little millennial was offended.
        because these millennials were taught in public schools where Marxist indoctrination was shoved down their throats, they are now implementing those practices.
        This has been extensively documented by G. Edward Griffin.
        Apparently you have a problem with the First Amendment.

        1. Are spoiled, whiny millennials the government?

          No, they’re just citizens? Then they are protected, not restricted, by the First Amendment.

          People can get fired for whatever reason their boss wants to fire them. It’s the libertarian dream. You are against worker rights across the fucking board.

          You all of a sudden want socialism in the workplace when it’s to protect pussy grabbers and racists. Just as I explained.

          1. Not at all. Again, the spoiled, whiny, narcissistic millenials are the ones causing all the noise and verbal flatulance by accusing others with some cooked up excuse in order to silence them. They are the ones causing this to happen, not those who exercise the right to free speech.
            When to state they(snowflakes) are being protected by the First Amendment, is the most obtuse and ignorant statement I’ve read yet. It is they who are violating the very tenants of the First Amendment. It is the snowflakes who are responsible for getting teachers, professors fired for the tiniest slight that offends some poor little snowflake.
            First Amendment protection? I don’t think so. If anything, they are destroying freedom of speech or at the very least curtail it to a narrow band of accepted speech/narrative.

            1. Citation please.

              Republicans tried to cancel the fucking presidential election, and God knows which groups of people it would try to cancel if it had power. The Supreme Court is about to cancel women who seek abortions. As in throw them in a cage for exercising what was a basic human right.

              They’re deliberately trying to cancel the RIGHT TO VOTE of black people and college students.

              They are passing laws to cancel trans people in a proto-genocidal fascist freakout.

              Fuck your grievances. No whiny millennial is passing any law to restrict your speech. You have the internet there for the vomiting of all your stupid fucking horrible ideas. You’re lying, and you’re talking nonsense.

      2. The problem with your story is that the cancel culture cunts are obviously not at all concerned about racism, and this is proven every time they toss off a racial epithet at any black conservative. That scumbag who bitched at justice Barrett over adopting kids who aren’t white is one of the most blatant lefturd racists operating today, and he gets cheered on by idiots like you.

        Without the freedom of speech, you’d still be in the closet if you wanted to stay out prison. You might want to think twice about promoting the lefturd party line against it, shithead.

        -jcr

        1. To be clear, you’re still only whining about other people engaging in speech that you don’t like, yes?

          1. I don’t whine, Tony. I’d never dream of appropriating your culture like that.

            -jcr

          2. “To be clear, you’re still only whining about other people engaging in speech that you don’t like, yes?”

            Shitstain claims to support free speech except when someone criticizes his faves!
            No surprise there; room-temperature IQs have a real problem with self-awareness.

            1. The term , I believe is snowflake.

              1. Between the two of us I’m the one not advocating that the government get involved in anyone’s speech.

                At least right here.

            2. No surprise there; room-temperature IQs have a real problem with self-awareness.

              On top of that, I believe Tony prefers Celsius.

    2. Why cant a Reasonable Adult discern whether or not the Theatre is on fire or not?

      Shout fire, see if I care. Ill just respond ” sit down in front!,

    3. “…The cancel cult that permeated college campuses has now infected all forms of life including where you work. This has become an extremist act unto itself. The people behind it are themselves extremists for they wish to control others speech in arbitrary manner…”

      Now tell us how you would ‘cure’ that without resorting to the almighty power of the government.

      1. Any college or university that allows this to happen would no longer receive any federal money, thereby relieving them of any federal authority.
        Just that simple: allow freedom of speech and continue to operate, deny freedom of speech and lose federal funding.

  32. Weighing out people’s privileges before they are allowed to have human feelings is a mistake. No amount of money can buy a brain that is more resilient to anxiety and pain. A destitute person and a royal feel more or less equal amounts of happiness, shame, pleasure, and pain.

    There is something terribly icky about fucking full grown adult Americans twatting out their opinion that this human being should be forced to do a job he doesn’t want to do for the rest of his life because we like to gawk at his freakshow family for entertainment.

    1. …so are we to take it you dont particularly like Hairy and his Twat?

      LoL

    2. Who exactly is saying he should be forced to do that job? That sounds like something you pulled out of your ass.

      -jcr

      1. Usually 50-something women on the internet who affect British mannerisms to make themselves feel sophisticated. “One does not simply flee to America and marry an actress if one is a royal prince. It’s not done!”

      2. “Who exactly is saying he should be forced to do that job?…”

        The ones populating shitstain’s fantasy life.

  33. Under pres. Bloe Jiden, a new program has been created that will target anyone who speaks out of turn. They have essentially established a pre-crime surveillance program, that ensnares nearly everyone.
    This new office is called the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) run by none other than the KGB/ DHS. The list concocted by this neo-communist security group can and will be used to ensnare anyone, you, me your co workers. Anybody.
    Minority report anyone?
    This is how freedom dies, bit by bit or as David Icke calls it , the Totalitarian Two Step.
    So just by being on the site not to mention commenting, you are now in the gun sights of the KGB/DHS.
    We are now living in an era where you are assumed guilty until proven innocent….if that’s even possible.
    By domestic terrorist threats, they mean anyone to the right of BLM/ANTIFA. If you support the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you are considered a domestic terrorist threat.
    Just consider what is happening to those who were arrested for protesting the election on Jan.6. they are in solitary, beaten and tortured while murderers, rapists and thieves are released into the public. While ANTIFA riots and burns down Portland, the rest of us are being considered for the concentration camps. The dystopian future that is now upon us could not be realised by George Orwell, Phillip K. Dick or Aldous Huxley. The surveillance will encompass every aspect of our lives.
    Welcome to the brave new world.

  34. The reason Prince Harry abandoned the British Monarchy was probably because in this day and age the King can no longer unilaterally behead anyone who offends him.

    That’s likely why Harry thinks the U.S. 1st Amendment is “bonkers.”

    On the other hand, it’s clever for Harry to claim that he’s crazy. “Panic attack” can be his all-purpose excuse when he says stooopid things.

  35. I’m generally against deporting anyone but I think we should deport Harry.

  36. I no longer need my job because of copy here Usa.work45.c¬o¬m

  37. It’s a very amazing article. More informative.
    If want to learn about the blog so you can visit this article
    https://all4techs.com/how-to-start-a-blog-and-earn-money.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.