Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Even If Trump's Threat Against NBC Isn't Serious, It's Still Destructive

Our norms are being eroded by "both sides" of the partisan battle.

After NBC News ran an article that maintained that President Donald Trump had asked for the U.S. nuclear arsenal to be increased nearly tenfold, Trump, as is his wont, tweeted: "With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!"

The answer, of course, is that it's never appropriate for a person sworn to defend the Constitution to threaten to shut down speech, not even if that speech irritates him or undermines his political priorities or happens to be genuinely false news. Trump might have framed his contention in the form of a question, but he's clearly comfortable with regulatory restrictions on speech. This puts in him league with those who support "fairness doctrines," those who want to overturn the Citizens United decision and so on.

When I tweeted critical comments about Trump's "license" idea, a follower accused of me practicing "literal-ism." This is not new. As you know, we're not supposed to take everything Trump says seriously. Sure, it's more than likely his threat is nothing more than bluster. There is less of a chance that he'll challenge the "licenses" of networks—whatever that means; networks don't function on licensing tied to the veracity of their reporting, obviously—than there is of the GOP passing any meaningful bill. It's just more fuel for the corrupt symbiotic relationship between the president and the establishment media. Each side can now preen for a cycle.

But none of this changes the fact that presidents do have the power to undermine your privacy and destroy your life over free expression. It doesn't change the fact, as we learned over the past eight years, that when presidents play around with authoritarian ideas for political gain, a faction of Americans—always a different faction, depending on who is speaking—are comfortable hearing it or offer rationalizations for it. All the while, we continue to abandon neutral principles for political gain. This is especially true on the issue of speech.

A forthcoming Cato Institute poll, as reported by Reason, found that 50 percent of Democrats believe "government should prevent people from engaging in hate speech against certain groups in public." What's more, 53 percent believe defending someone else's right "to say racist things" is tantamount to "holding racist views yourself." It's a position similar to the one that alleges anyone who supports due process for those accused of rape on college campuses is merely defending rape. For that matter, it's reminiscent of the position of Democratic senators who argue that Republicans' demands for due process for gun owners make them no better than terrorists.

Recently, about 200 staff members of the American Civil Liberties Union—an organization that bills itself a defender of constitutional rights—complained that the group's "rigid stance" on the First Amendment was undermining its attempts to institute racial justice. Is this really the choice—liberty or "justice"? For progressives, many of whom are abandoning liberalism, it seems the answer is yes.

They're not alone. The Cato poll finds that 72 percent of Republicans would support making it illegal to burn or desecrate the American flag. More than 50 percent of them believe, as Trump once suggested, that those who do should be stripped of their U.S. citizenship. Fifty percent of Republicans believe the press has too much freedom in America. Other polling has found similarly disturbing results.

To some extent, it is likely that answers in these polls are more about signaling race and gender issues than supporting any specific policy. In the same way, many of the answers are likely an outlet for frustration over flag protests or the media. Even so, what the polls do illustrate is that our hierarchy of ideals has changed in destructive ways. Americans find free speech to be a secondary principle.

The entire "fake news" outrage—from Trump's usage of the phrase to the Facebook presidential election scare—is an excuse for someone to limit speech. No, it doesn't matter if most journalists now lecturing you about the First Amendment are a bunch of enormous hypocrites. Nor does it matter that their biased coverage has eroded your trust. There is a bigger marketplace for news now than ever. Don't watch NBC.

But even if you're not idealistic about free expression, it might be worth remembering that any laws or regulations you embrace to inhibit the speech of others, even anchors reporting fake news, could one day be turned on you. This is the lesson big-government Democrats and Republicans never learn.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

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.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "many of whom are abandoning liberalism"

    I haven't seen a more inappropriate place to end an English word with "-ing" since I got kicked out of Algebra for imitating the Chinese exchange student.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Lots of moving parts for this joke.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    When it comes to humor, I have more moving parts than a Spielberg film about a puppy orphanage in 1915 Ypres starring Tom Hanks and Leo DiCaprio as truck drivers delivering a cargo of officers' furniture and artillery components to the front before discovering their true destiny.

  • ||

    Is there an exhausted but strong Red Cross nurse who catches Leo's eye? And together they enjoy a few moments together indicating a burgeoning love, only to have it seemingly dashed when she mistakenly thinks he's selling the puppies to the nearby refugee gypsies as food? But then, when she realizes he's not doing that, takes him back again?

  • Lily Bulero||

    Stop, you're making me hungry.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    If you want to read leaked internet spoilers, Ch3, that's fine, but it's rude to post them on a general forum where everyone can see them.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Can we come up with a better way to have broadcasting licenses than the government? Some of this feels like natural consequence of broadcast networks being a rent seeking cartel.

  • Number 2||

    This. It would be useful for someone to point out that the real problem is not Trump's tweet, but instead the 80-year-old federal law regulating broadcasting that gives Trump's tweet credibility.

    Yesterday, one of our fellow commentators posted an FCC statement warning that broadcast licensees will be investigated and punished for "intentionally" slanting news, which the FCC calls "a most heinous act against the public interest."

    Did you know that the FCC plays judge, jury and executioner on the question of what constitutes "intentionally false" news, and which broadcasters are purveying it? Is it wrong to ask whether this implicit threat explains at least part of the broadcast media's pro-statist slant? And are we truly naive enough to believe that no president before Trump ever considered using the FCC to intimidate media opposition?

    Let's see whether this episode leads to real reform, or is instead another tiresome, three-day Trump-media tweet-indignant outrage cycle.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    Let's investigate the need for the FCC in general. There's some small role in limiting access to certain broadcast frequencies (I guess) for over the air forms of media. But in today's digital media, what legitimate role do they really serve anyway?

  • politicalmenace||

    Good points Number 2. I am not a big fan of Trump's tweets or some of his policy suggestions however I admire that he never allows the media to reframe an issue. He doesn't genuflect like those before him or simply accept the media's pre-ordained narrative. Never have I seen a president push back so adamantly against the press and frankly its refreshing to see that he consistently holds their feet to the fire. Many of course don't agree with Trump's tactics and his sometimes childish behavior but each time he delves into this sort of behavior the media seems to always out do him. I think his tweeter comments on this issue was nothing but hyperbole and don't kid yourself in thinking Trump is stupid or unintelligent. People came to the same conclusion regarding Obama and that man was far from stupid. Most of these incidents are planned and intended to spark some sort of outrage from some fringe group out there.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    "Obama ... was far from stupid"
    I guess on a graph with "stupid" at the center of the X axis, more stupid to the right and less to the left, "far" could be either direction.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN05jVNBs64

  • Chip Chipperson||

    Exactly right. Trump opens the overton window and starts conversations about things we NEVER would be talking about in any other political/media climate. Because the people previously in charge of deciding what we get to talk about have no interest in such conversations.

    The media has been a racket for far too long -- and they're trying to maintain that monopoly at all costs even today. Witness the YouTube demonetization and algorithm initiatives. Designed specifically to strangle alternative media and push establishment outlets back to the forefront.

    Talking about FCC broadcast licenses is a perfectly reasonable -- and, in fact, long overdue -- conversation to be having.

  • Conchfritters||

    Hell hath no fury than Trump with low ratings.

  • Memory Hole||

    What fucking norms? American life was bad/worse from a liberty and free speech perspective in the past.

  • John||

    Bingo. The only "norm" that I have ever seen is that you only do this sort of stuff to conservative and disfavored broadcasters. Trump's sin is that he dared do it to NBC. When Obama said this about Fox

    Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world," Obama said.

    No one outside of the Republican Partisan media gave a shit. You are not supposed to treat liberal organizations the way liberals treat conservative organizations. Trump is breaking the Court Rules and even D list members of the Beltway Court culture like Reason are obligated to say so.

  • Paint Thinner||

    Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world," Obama said.

    is the same as

    "With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!"

    LOL

  • John||

    Yes. Obama is saying Fox News is the enemy of the country. He just left it to his listeners to make the obvious conclusion. If you had an IQ above room temperature, you would understand that.

  • Tony||

    It's bad when Obama does it but OK when Trump does it, even when Trump is demonstrably worse. You don't really have to keep saying the same thing over and over.

  • John||

    It is the same either way. That is the point dipshit. The people having fainting fits about this cheered Obama when he did the same thing.

  • BYODB||

    They aren't the same thing. One is a statement of opinion, the other is a question that implies a call to action. You're a lawyer John, you should find a better example if you want to make that claim. I'm sure you could find one, but at the end of the day it's a Whataboutism either way.

    Sorry, but it's true.

    If it's any consolation, everyone's wrong on this one because Trump's statement is not a threat and can not be considered a threat. He's suggesting that there is a cause to make a legal investigation into the permit status of NBC. It's not a law I care for, for sure, but this is the type of thing the Obama administration did behind closed doors instead of out in the open precisely so they could continue to stand on the high ground while actually being knee-deep in the mud.

  • John||

    You are correct it isn't a threat. That is why it is no different and in fact probably not as bad as Obama calling Fox an enemy of the country.

  • MarioLanza||

    Obama did more than just call Fox news the enemy of the country. Obama used the Espionage Act to put a record number of reporters' sources in jail.

    "The administration's targeting of journalists, including (a) attorney general Eric Holder's approval of the seizure of personal and business phone records of Associated Press reporters en masse (i.e., not a particularized search targeting a specific journalist suspected of wrongdoing); and (b) Holder's approval of a warrant targeting the e-mails of Fox News reporter James Rosen in a leak investigation — based on an application in which the government represented to a federal court that the journalist could be guilty of a felony violation of the Espionage Act in connection with a leak of classified information (in addition to purportedly being a "flight risk").

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....associates"

  • Cente||

    Lets play a game:

    Lets pretend President Trump said:

    NBC pushes a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country.

    Or

    Lets pretend President Obama said:

    With all of the Fake News coming out of Fox and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!"

    Does it change the argument? Am i just wasting time before my boss realizes I am not working? Are we really even here?

    I like Oreo cookies.

  • Tony||

    John's a paragon of nonpartisan objectivity. Let's just get that out of the way right now.

    But I too am feeling some strange angst today. I'm not superstitious but damn if it isn't Fr. 13th.

  • Longtobefree||

    However ,Michelle definitely does not like Oreo Cookies, so you may to justify your comment to the FCC.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I don't think there was anything obvious from Obama's message that he planned to use government coercion to prevent Fox from continuing to broadcast.

  • Number 2||

    Actually, John, the more I read Obama's comment, the more incoherent it seems. It's hard to read it as a threat. In fact, it is hard to read it as saying much of anything.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    To be fair, NBC's broadcast policies over the last forty years have also been destructive.

  • juris imprudent||

    Can't wait to see the reaction of proggies to being on the same side of CU as Trump!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    INSTITUTIONS ARE CRUMBLING.

  • Cy||

    Freedom of speech shouldn't require a license. Yet, here we are.

  • John||

    It doesn't. Broadcasting over the airwaves does. But no one does that anymore.

  • BYODB||

    That's sort of the problem here, in that these media companies are already regulated and can be shut down by the government.

    Let me repeat that.

    The FCC can shut down broadcasters if they publish 'untrue news', essentially, if there is a willful component to disseminating those false news stories. I'm not sure they would ever actually 'get away' with it, but I assume that in the right circumstances they absolutely would. At the very least it's considered 'legal' even while I'm sure it would be challenged.

    While I take issue with Trump taking aim at only certain publications with his no-doubt empty threats to review (whatever that means) their license, if you step back a little you'll perhaps ask yourself 'why is that something that Trump can actually do in the first place, and a threat that people take at least semi-seriously'.

    The answer, of course, is over 100 years of Progressivism and their preferred policies.

    I, too, wish that Trump was doing this sort of thing to draw attention to those facts but I'm fairly certain he's just emoting from the Oval Office.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    So it's interesting you say "no one does that anymore", when in fact the popularity of public broadcasts (using actual airwaves!) has been increasing in recent years. This is partially due to people "cutting the cord" and wanting to retain some local broadcasts for sports, news, etc. Why do they resort to over-the-air broadcasts for this, and not just get it as part of their internet-based package? Because government underwrites exclusive "ownership" of local broadcasting to certain parties over other parties.

  • Denan7||

    No. Everyone does that. Cell phones (when not on wifi) transmit/receive on licensed public broadcast spectrum that holds similar requirements for use in the public interest.

    The difference is that licensed broadcasters are not providing a service wherein you and I can talk (both voice and voice/video) to each other or to many others. The broadcasters dictate what is carried into our homes by virtue of the licenses they hold.

    Also, the vast majority of the local channels you get over cable are broadcast to the cable company's antenna who then puts them on their system for carriage to their customers.

  • Longtobefree||

    Why not?
    There are reasonable restrictions on the bill of rights now; they should be extended to all of the bill of rights.
    Permits for speech, permits to be covered against searches and asset forfeiture, church attendance permits, the whole ten yards.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    It's simple: every sword cuts two ways

  • John||

    The Democrats have spent decades wanting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. And the Democratic Members of the FCC have long wanted to go after Drudge. But Trump says the same things about NBC that Democrats have been saying about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the rest for years and that is just not cricket.

  • Paint Thinner||

    "The Democrats"

    vs.

    Dotard Drumpf, President.

    Much easier to use unnamed people on one side.

  • John||

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....trine.html

    A political battle is brewing over control of the radio airwaves as Democrats consider pushing for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, an FCC policy that requires broadcast stations to provide opposing views on controversial issues of public importance.

    Democratic lawmakers who support the doctrine say it will help increase the number of liberal shows in a landscape dominated by conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

    "I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told liberal radio host Bill Press last week. She said she expects hearings soon on reviving the policy, which was introduced in 1949 and abolished in 1987.

    Google is your friend doofus.

  • BYODB||

    It's a tell to show that they're retarded so that you can ignore their drivel, so really we should thank them for being so up-front honest about themselves.

  • Lily Bulero||

    "But even if you're not idealistic about free expression, it might be worth remembering that any laws or regulations you embrace to inhibit the speech of others, even anchors reporting fake news, could one day be turned on you. This is the lesson big-government Democrats and Republicans never learn."

    By this time, I think they're both aware of this, and they assume the other party will do unto them as they would to the other party. So the only priority is to get and keep power so that you'll be the one screwing the opposition and not vice-versa.

  • John||

    Yes. Once one party disregards the rules, the other party either has to as well or face extinction. But once they both have, it is virtually impossible to ever go back to the rules. The Democrats long ago stopped playing by the rules. Trump is just the stupid party figuring that out.

  • Lily Bulero||

    There's a counterexample - when the Federalist Party used the Sedition Act against what is now the Democratic Party, Jefferson's response was to denounce this as unconstitutional. When he came into office, there was only one, local and unauthorized, federal sedition prosecution which Jefferson didn't even defend in the Supreme Court (and a couple state-level prosecutions which by Jefferson's ideology were the responsibility of the states) - so it's fair to say Jefferson *didn't* disregard the rules.

    Arguably, Jefferson got some mileage out of showing up the censoring proclivities of the Federalists.

    By the way, whatever happened to the Federalists? :)

  • John||

    They became the Whigs who then died and were replaced by the Republicans after they sold out the free states by passing the Kansas Nebraska Act.

    And Jefferson is part of the greatest political class since the Ancient Rome. We currently have the worst political class since the Ancien Regim. I wouldn't hold my breath for another Jefferson to walk through the door.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Part of the Dems split off into the Whigs - the rest of the Dems waited out the whole Civil War thing and after biding their time, got some of their power back.

    Yes, Jefferson was part of a distinctive generation - recgnizable to current politicians, but not embracing corruption with the zeal of the current generation, and less inclined to sext teenage girls (to be fair, they'd have been more likely to get beaten up if they did).

  • Lily Bulero||

    They'd be more likely to write the parents - "thy daughter is, like, 17, is going to stay an old maid for the rest of her life? Let me marry her, I've got huge...tracts of land."

  • Lily Bulero||

    Oops, I forgot about Sally Hemmings.

  • John||

    The Sally Hemmings thing is a lie. It is pretty certain that it was Jefferson's brother who was banging Hemmings.

  • Lily Bulero||

    I'd say it's a Scotch verdict, not proven.

  • John||

    The Whigs were formed by Democrats pissed at Jackson and the leftover remnants of the Federalist Party. From wikipedia

    People who helped to form the new party included supporters of Clay, supporters of Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, former National Republicans, former Antimasons, former disaffected Jacksonians (led by John C. Calhoun), who viewed Jackson's actions as impinging on the prerogatives of Congress and the states, and small remnants of Federalist Party, people whose last political activity was with them a decade before. The "Whig" name emphasized the party's opposition to Jackson's perceived executive tyranny, and the name helped the Whigs shed the elitist image of the National Republican Party.[12]

  • Lily Bulero||

  • John||

    One of my best friends is a direct descendant of Jefferson. At the time he had an old boss who was black. Right after the Sally Hemmings thing comes out he sees his old boss at a conference. In the middle of a very crowded hotel lobby his old boss comes up to him and says "Jeff, did you hear we were cousins?" Talk about a great sense of humor.

  • Lily Bulero||

    He could have replied, "bummer, if we're cousins I guess we'll have to cancel our wedding."

  • Paint Thinner||

    Dotard Drumpf threatens NBC News repeating his threats from his campaign days, and earlier in the year.

    reason.com douchebags call it a problem on "both sides"

    Oh wait, reason.com teams up with Federalist for this pile of dog shit!

  • John||

    Dotard Drumpf, did stay up late working on that piece of enlightening commentary or did it just come to you as a stroke of genius? Lay off the paint thinner son.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Dotard Drumpf

    Check out the new guy, trying to make Mikey/shreek's nickname game look like a goddamn Friar's Club roast.

  • John||

    It is funny as hell when one of these idiots crawls out of the Kos/DU swamp. They actually think saying shit like makes them look clever rather than marking them as clueless, Daily Show watching morons.

  • Tony||

    Tell us more about Black Obumbler.

  • John||

    I don't know who that is Tony. Why don't you go find someone who ever used such an idiotic term and get back to me.

    And the proper term for Obama on here is either the Black Jesus or the Chocolate Light Bringer.

  • Tony||

    Terms that are becoming less sarcastic the more the Moscow Mule ruins everything, huh?

  • BYODB||

    What was Obama's policy towards Russia, again?

  • Tony||

    Relatively less fellatio.

  • BYODB||

    Obama 'reset' relations with Russia, supposedly, refer yourself to the picture of Hillary Clinton herself with that retarded red reset button.

    So if Russia is a threat now, were they a threat then and Obama was too pig ignorant to see it? I'm curious what the revisionist history is going to be there, but I suspect it will simply be ignored by retards like yourself. Recall that Putin has been in power literally the entire time.

    It's simply a fact that Russia only became a 'threat' in some people's minds because Hillary Clinton told them they should be. This is after, as Secretary of State, she gave them all sorts of wonderful things like approving deals to give them Uranium!

    Your blinders are so huge it's a wonder you can see your own nose.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "So if Russia is a threat now, were they a threat then and Obama was too pig ignorant to see it?"

    Yes.

  • Tony||

    Stop watching FOX News for Christ's sake. Reset button? Are you a fucking toddler? God the talking points. Jesus fuck they grate on the brain.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    True, it was actually an "overcharge" button. In HRC's defense, it totally worked.

  • MayneDeWayne||

    Probably not a great idea to want to ban hate speech, while simultaneously wanting protections to burn the flag. That is unless I can burn the Israeli flag, Mexican flag, gay pride flag, black power flag, so on and so forth. After all, to burn your own flag is a form of hate speech, if you want to get technical about it.
    Think the government wants citizens on tv burning the flags of other countries? Maybe Chinese, Russian, and so on? Nope, they don't want to strain their relationship, and risk escalation. Only ones you can burn here are the confederate, Nazi, American and ISIS flags, and the only one that is even in question in that scenario is the ISIS flag because you might offend Muslims. This is PC culture at work.

  • Tony||

    Who are you talking about? The president is telling people they shouldn't be allowed to not stand and salute the flag.

  • MayneDeWayne||

    To be clear, I'm referring to this part of the article.

    A forthcoming Cato Institute poll, as reported by Reason, found that 50 percent of Democrats believe "government should prevent people from engaging in hate speech against certain groups in public." What's more, 53 percent believe defending someone else's right "to say racist things" is tantamount to "holding racist views yourself." It's a position similar to the one that alleges anyone who supports due process for those accused of rape on college campuses is merely defending rape.

  • John||

    Republicans are the real threat to free speech, Wayne. All those mobs assaulting people on college campuses are Republicans, right?

  • Bra Ket||

    Dude, did you know a majority of republicans want to outlaw your ability to burn a specific cloth emblem most people don't own (save for the people who are against burning them)? I know this for a fact because Reason tells me at least four times a week.

  • MayneDeWayne||

    John, they both are. I can assure you it wasn't Republicans who put out a list of conspiracy sites and called them 'fake news'. Who is trying to get Google and Facebook to limit what news you see in order to reign in said 'fake news'?

  • John||

    Democrats.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Think the government wants citizens on tv burning the flags of other countries? Maybe Chinese, Russian, and so on? Nope, they don't want to strain their relationship, and risk escalation."

    What makes you think that they care anything about their relationship or escalation? Some have even argued that the government is intentionally trying to poison their relationship with certain countries (e.g. Russia) or provoke escalation (e.g. N Korea).

  • MikeP2||

    Why are Trump's speech being taken as a threat to "free speech"? They imply nothing of the sort.

    The only threat is to consider revoking the special treatment some outfits receive from the Federal government. I would think Libertarians would be behind that 100%. Why do 'official' press outfits receive special privilege, access and broadcasting rites? Does NBC deserve to be treated like a purveyor of non-partisan news for the civic good, or treated like the propaganda-for-profit outfit they've become? If Trump tweeted the same thing about Fox, would anyone care?

    All the media outfits have abdicated any remaining semblance of impartial news. NBC = Fox = MSNBC = National Enquirer = Huffington Post. All should be equal under the law, with no privilege granted to the "broadcast networks".

    So yes, take away their license. All of the licenses. doesn't impact free speech at all.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The Ruling Party will huff and puff and threaten anyone who doesn't toe the party line. Anyone else remember when the Democrat faction was talking about "doing something about talk radio"?

    -jcr

  • Longtobefree||

    "The answer, of course, is that it's never appropriate for a person sworn to defend the Constitution to threaten to shut down speech, not even if that speech irritates him or undermines his political priorities or happens to be genuinely false news."

    Maybe we should make English the national language. Trump has not (yet) done any of that.
    Trump is asking a legitimate question, regarding invoking the existing legal process to challenge an FCC license. If someone does challenge the license, hearings, as defined in law, will be held to hear why the license should not be renewed. If the petitioners can show that the holder is violating the public trust, say by broadcasting false stories, and the broadcaster cannot refute the facts presented, then the license MAY be withheld. But that determination is made in accordance with laws and regulations passed by our elected representatives.

    I have not seen anything from Trump indicating any kind of executive or extra-legal action. All of that exists only in the guilty minds of media mogels and their shills.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online