Joe Rogan, Canadian Truckers, Coronavirus Mandates, and the Terrible State of Free Speech

What Joe Rogan and Canadian truckers tell us about free speech.


Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie gather to discuss (and debate) takeaways from the Ottawa trucker protests, U.S. foreign policy, and the Olympics. All this and more on this Monday's Reason Roundtable.

Discussed in the show:

1:45: Protests in Ottawa, GoFundMe's response, and Joe Rogan.

32:50: Weekly listener question: While I very much agree that the U.S.
shouldn't be the world's police vis-à-vis random dictators doing evil
things to their citizens, I'm less convinced that we should withdraw from
all great power competition as many libertarians wish. If Jo had won in
2020, what would stop Xi from, say, declaring ownership of the South China
Sea and dominating or even invading Japan/Taiwan/Australia? How are we
better off if Putin can occupy Estonia and Poland because he feels like it?

47:54: Why the Olympics aren't doing as well this year.

52:39: Media recommendations for the week. (And click here for all of the Roundtable's media recommendations, ever.)

This week's links:

Send your questions to Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

  • We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don't realize is that health insurance won't always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That's why an AirMedCare Network membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won't see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. Now, as a listener of our show, you'll get up to a $50 Visa or Amazon gift card when you become an AMCN member. Simply visit and use the offer code REASON.
  • If you feel something interfering with your happiness or holding you back from your goals, BetterHelp is an accessible and affordable source for professional counseling. BetterHelp assesses your needs and matches you with a licensed therapist you can start talking to in under 24 hours, all online.

Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Regan Taylor
Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve


NEXT: Kat Rosenfield: Meet Joe Rogan's Dumbest Fans

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If private kkkorporations are doing it, even at the behest of the White House, totes ok. No?

    1. Build your own secret red phone to the white house.

      1. If it goes to Biden, that would be the Shat phone. Shatman na na na na na na na-na.

        1. Instead of The Nuclear Football, Biden has The Glow-In-The-Dark Bocce Ball.

  2. Literally none of the people who want to ban Joe Rogan for "coovid mIsinfoRmaTion!" have watched his episodes with Berenson, McCullough or Malone.

    1. They were told what to think about him. Knowing there's someone out there that doesn't agree with them makes them feel terribly unsafe.

    2. And risk getting tempted by the devil's arguments? Are you crazy? That sort of dangerous material is solely for the experts to hear so they can inform us of the Scientific Consensus on the matter.

    3. Literally none of the people making this claim really know what the people who want to ban Joe Rogan have watched or not.

      Also, ban?
      verb: ban; 3rd person present: bans; past tense: banned; past participle: banned; gerund or present participle: banning

      officially or legally prohibit.

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      1. says the person who hasn't watched them

        1. Nice mind reading there, Prof. X

          1. It’s a reasonable deduction.

            1. It's the only logical deduction.

            2. It's a reasonable deduction that someone who thinks Joe Rogan is full of shit just hasn't watched enough Joe Rogan?


              1. No. You base the entirety of your posting from ignorance. It is common sense you fo so here as well.

                1. "common sense you fo so "

                  Are you ordering Chinese food?

                  1. Shrike likes the cream of sumyungai

                2. I'm going to have to remember "sense you fo so" like covfefe.

              2. What makes you think he’s full of shit?

          2. "Nice mind reading there, Prof. X"

            What, EXACTLY, was said that was so terrible? Precise examples, since you so obviously watched/listened to them.

        1. Quibbling is Quislings are so stupid.


          1. Quislings are running the joint.

            1. Master of ceremonies on a gameshow seems innocuous.

      2. Now give us the definition of “vaccine”.

        1. AND give us an idea how long that definition will remain as the definition..... till the next scientific consensus of govt approved scienticians?

      3. Yeah, we do. Because we all understood the context. And we all understood that many of the times Joe Rogan said "nigger" there was a black guest across the table with him discussing it.

        1. Good thing Biden never said it!

        2. You idiot, the original post was about 'covid disinformation.'

          You're a bit dull, aren't ya?

          1. Has Rogan had more misinformation than the cdc?

            1. What you just said is unsayable.

            2. Hope you didn't hurt your back with that goal post move!

              1. Two weeks to flatten the curve.

              2. "Hope you didn't hurt your back with that goal post move!"

                If your complaint about Rogan is his "misinformation", how is the government agency that is supposed to be providing the "correct" information providing MORE misinformation than the "bad" Joe Rogan not relevant?

          2. The OP was about getting rid of Rogan because of Covid misinformation. The people that went through all his podcasts and found and exposed him saying nigger did it because they want to get rid of him…for spreading Covid misinformation.

            Stop being stupid.

            1. When the covid attack didn't work, they switch gears, but it's the same offensive.

              1. No, it’s totally a coincidence that someone just happened to go through someone who’s been famous for decades’ podcasts to find him saying nigger a week after the attempt to silence him for Covid misnarrative didn’t work. Unless you have video or signed confessions.


              2. How long before we get "sexual harassment" allegations?

                1. Depends how long the current attack stays in the headlines. Normally I’d say 3 days after that, but they’re going full Goebbels on him so about 24 hours after that.

  3. Joe Rogan, Canadian Truckers, Coronavirus Mandates, and the Terrible State of Free Speech

    Welcome to the conversation, Reason. There aren't many seats left because this conference has been going since *checks notes* 2015 or so. Over there is, they've been a major contributor. In fact you may know the editor, Brendan O'Neill who's even been a Reason contributor. But we're glad you showed up. Any small addition to the discussion is always appreciated, no matter how small or how late in the game it comes.

    1. Why do you hang out at Reason so much if you hate it so? Weird.

      1. We remember when it was good, that’s why.

        1. That's so sad...

            1. It is. Reminds me of the people who hate the new Star Wars films lining up to watch it for the second time so they can better note to their buddies how terrible it was.

              Also, as someone who used to frequent Reason back in the day, when was it supposed to be 'better' from the 'Farmers for Trump' perspective? When Weigel and Sanchez were regulars? When Postrel was?

              1. No one watched that crap a second time.

                1. Except maybe you? Here you are hanging around for hours on a cite you hate....

                  Do you board your ex's show dog as well Walter?

                  1. cite? Better break out the dictionary again.

                    1. er, a dictionary for...?

                      You're just kind of repeating words you've heard...Poor kid.

                    2. I’m going back to my assessment it’s pod.

                  2. So you can't read or spell? Is the Queen Mother doing the typing?

              2. Thats a lie. No one could've frequented reason when the writers were good and ended up as retarded as you.

                1. Again, you've never been accused of being too smart, have you? You can argue Sanchez, Weigel, Postrel were so 'good' on your views if you'd like, I'd like to hear such retarded arguments!

                  1. I appreciate your oh so principled remarks.

                    1. I guess you've heard that kind of reply and like a color blind fellow faced with outfits thought it clever to repeat it, but, er, I did make 'principled remarks.' You've never heard of those writers, their history here, or where they ended up, have you? It's ok dude, you're
                      not smart, your mom will, as you've always heard, love you.

                  2. You're not even creative enough think of your own insult so you copied mine? Sad.

      2. I've read and donated to the Reason foundation for almost twenty years. I had a subscription for ten.
        Why shouldn't I shout when mealy-mouth fascists like you try and hijack the libertarian message?

        1. Pathetic. You're not shouting at someone like me in the comments hijacking the libertarian message, you're bitching at the *contributors.* And they're certainly not any *worse* from your Farmers for Trump perspective than they were in the past.

          Plus, 'hijack?' Get real. If you've been around for twenty years you know that Reason thinks private entities can do what they want with their own toys. Who do you think you're fooling?

          1. from your Farmers for Trump perspective

            People who are not trolls don't use prefabricated proggie phrases to fallaciously attack their critics. Pro tip: don't use your sloganeering twice in successive posts.

            1. Pre-fabricated? That's all mine. Is someone infringing on my trademark?

          2. Sure private entities, but not corporatist entities, or those under government pressure or through collusion, which is what fascist fucks like you and some of the Reasonistas have been pretending (lying) was private.

            And yes hijack. Paid Open Societies shills like you are the very definition of hijack, as are billionaire benefactors who pay for a narrative like Koch.

            1. Lol, every entity is 'under pressure' to follow some laws! But there's no explanatory purchase here: of course companies sever ties with people doing largely condemned things!

              You hate capitalism, Karl.

              1. But it isn't "largely condemned things".

                It's political discussions that inconvenience the Biden administration's narratives. Nothing Rogan or or his guests have said are condemned by society in general whether left or right. You would know that if you ever watched an episode.

                You do nothing but misrepresent and lie here, but I guess that's what you're paid for.

          3. If you've been around for twenty years you know that Reason thinks private entities can do what they want with their own toys. Who do you think you're fooling?

            I guess so, but no one makes a real case that we are talking about real private entities. How can we consider them to be fully private when public employee pension funds are major investors, they have large contracts with the government, and many of their consumers are public employees?

            There's a fundamental dishonesty about the now accepted "libertarian" position and I don't think you could change my mind about that. I don't call myself a libertarian because of people like you.

      3. I can pulled in back when they were advocates for liberterian thought.

      4. There are still libertarians here that share some great information.

        Also, NatGeo is paying me to observe and report on sea lion mating behavior.

        1. Speaking of sealions mating, when I was last in Maine I saw this old drunk banging the shit out of a cow sealion. I think they were both high.
          Damnedest thing ever. I blame Trump.

          1. Was it at a $500,000 AirBnB house?

            1. Half a million dollars!
              Can you believe the luxury.

        2. "there are other sad fucks like me who hang around the restaurant bitching about the food and service"!

          1. “Thank you, drive through.”
            - Queen Amalthea

            1. I suspect it hasn't held a job like that, too icky. Since it claims to be an adjunct professor, and we get to receive the stupid shit it learns, I am guessing fucktard undergrad, non-stem. No manual labor experience, no labor experience, no real work experience that didn't involve collating and making shit up.

              1. "Since it claims to be an adjunct professor"

                I both subbed in the classroom as an undergrad and worked in admin on applications back in the day, and I don't believe he's got more than a high school equivalency.

                The problem with Shrike, Jeff and DOL's socks is that they give them such fantastical back stories.

                1. In the words of a wise old man, "I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sorbet."

              2. "Since it claims to be an adjunct professor,"

                An ADJUNCT? Really?

                Starbucks told her no on her application?

  4. So 7 people involved in, or present at, the Canadian Trucker protest, were arrested:

    5 for "mischief"
    2 for "mischief related property damage"
    1 for "driving while prohibited"

    No arson or looting noted. And not even assaults. Is this what constitutes a Canadian "occupation" that rises to the level of a national emergency?

    We [via the media] should be pillorying these assholes.

    1. Hopefully someone will pump the brakes on whatever is driving this truculent campaign.

      1. I did not lend my truck to you. Is that your excuse for stealing it?

      2. I want them to truck my blues away.

      3. I’ll pass.

    2. The media and the government are one.

      1. They should stay in their lanes.

      2. Translation: there's media and government that don't say and do as I'd like!

        1. What do you call a system where industry and media follow government orders?

          1. Uh, you're going to have to be more specific because *every* system follows some government orders (just like in every system most drivers follow some government orders, all businesses follow government orders, etc.,).

            1. And Shrike just comes out and says fascism is okay because everyone does it.

              1. I'm not Shrike and that's not what I said. I said every system has people obeying the government in some, indeed, many aspects. You know, laws and stuff.

                1. Laws flow from mutually acknowledged rights. The rest is authoritarianism.

                  1. Even if so (and it ain't since people disagree, shocking to you I know!) even Lockean theory says everyone is going to have to obey the government. So, no dice.

                    1. Lockean theory? Does being that pretentious impress the college chicks? How about the solemn Declaration of "the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled"?

                      "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

                      You are full of shit.

                2. You are Shrike, and Dajjal, and Buttplug, and AmericanSocia1ist, and a dozen other socks, and that's exactly what you said.

                  1. Wow, you're literally crazy. Everyone who might disagree with you is Goldstein!

                    1. No peanut, it is your use of euphemisms that you can't stop using that shows people who you are.

                    2. Shrike is now pointing and sputtering.

                    3. Shrike - "I'm going to sockpuppet but use the exact same expressions and tics I always do, and not change my tone"

                      Also Shrike - "Wow, you're literally crazy for thinking I'm obviously Shrike"

                    4. You're honestly not creative or intelligent enough to maintain convincing sockpuppets.

                      They all devolve into the same recognizeable progshit moron and you start shreeking.

            2. Media is supposed to be more than propaganda. At least they sell themselves as an alternative to that. Therefore, it's not only propaganda but fraud.

              1. That's such a facile and demonstrably incorrect statement at the same time. Our 'media' is hundreds, maybe thousands of outlets. Most of them don't engage in 'propaganda' (for who???).

                Now, it'd be nice in a perverse way if the 'media' were one thing 'under the thumb' of some evil government. Then you'd be like the guy in V for Vendetta and SexyCoolAF!!! But life ain't like that, I hate to tell you.

                1. You definitely didn't get the point of V for Vendetta at all.

                  It was specifically about politicians and medical experts conspiring to use a virus to manufacture an emergency in order to get rich and consolidate power with the express complicity of the media in presenting propaganda as news.

                  Nothing was 'under the thumb' of the government until the population handed it to them out of the fear stoked by the media.

                  Life is proving to be exactly like that.

                  1. I can’t wait for queens
                    disingenuous response.

                  2. Holy shit.

                    Me: Look, this isn't a V for Vendetta thing where you're the hero.
                    You: You fool, this is totally a V for Vendetta thing (and I'm the hero!).

                    1. Me: You are misrepresenting the the plot of V for Vendetta to make an unsupportable point, asshat.
                      You: Double down!

                2. 40 years ago there were 35 companies that owned the major television and radio stations/shows. In 2010 there were 6. And now there are 5. Comcast, Disney, Time Warner, news Corp, and National Amusements.

                  Dont say shit so easily disproven.

                  1. Hi Mr. Chomsky!

                    You sound just like Marxists from recent past. Do you not get that (of course he doesn't, Fox and OAN hasn't told him about that!).

                    1. Couldn’t refute his response that made your comment look stupid huh?

                    2. So you admit you were wrong at least.

                3. I'm speaking shorthand. Yes, by "the media is propaganda" I mean CNN et al., not Your HumbleBumpkintown Post.

                  1. That's lazy and stupid. WSJ, NYP, FOX, etc., are major media players (how did the 'regime' allow that?). Also, CNN is often (more often than Fox was of Trump) critical of Biden.

                    Some 'propaganda.' But hey, I get it, if you say stupid stuff like this it makes you oh so important and sexy, resisting the 'man!' Lol.

                    1. I’ll concede the point: WSJ and Fox are not propaganda like CNN.

                    2. "Also, CNN is often (more often than Fox was of Trump) critical of Biden."

                      BWA HA HA HA.

                      Of course.

        2. See shrike. Some of us would prefer a government weak that didn't cave to demands of asshole citizens like yourself.

          1. Lol, no, you'd LOVE a strong government. One that would police all employers to catch illegal aliens. One that would build a massive wall much through private land seized. One that would close down opposition media by revoking licenses or 'tightening' libel laws. etc.

            You'd love that. Most Farmers.

            For Trump.


            1. And again you lie and project.

              Again. Some of us want a weak government that doesn't push your asshole demands on others.

              This includes welfare practices. Nobody here would have an issue with migration if not for massive welfare dumbass.

              1. Cool story, Farmer Jesse!

                1. Do you enjoy lying as a means to an end, or do you enjoy it for it’s own sake?

                  1. It can’t be a means to an end: she is into getting anywhere.

    3. Three of the "mischief" were carrying jerrycans to refuel vehicles. Two because they failed to provide ID on demand (which isn't actually a misdemeanor, so I don't know how that will stand).

      One of the "mischief related property damage" was sweeping the street. I don't know what the other was.

      Maybe they should loot a Walmart or burn down a church instead, and have billionaire donors take care of their legal fees.

      1. I knew a guy who was extremely proud of having been busted for pulling a push broom in the Marines.

        I believe it happened because he's the ornery kind of guy who would use a push broom to sweep out an office, not trying very hard to avoid chair and table legs, make a racket and a nusiance of himself, and piss off the sergeant who was bent out of shape because he had been through an expensive White House background check so he could refuel Air Force One when it stopped by, and the White House had stamped his personnel file with "Do Not Transfer Without White House Approval", making him almost untouchable during the Vietnam War.

        1. Any grunt noncomm worth his salt has a letter of reprimand for pissing in the cheerios of some pencil pushing field grade. Just how it goes.

    4. A runaway SUV hits four people accidentally with a noted anarchist passenger.

    5. You didn't watch Due South, did you? Canadian occupations are polite national emergencies.

  5. Where was that headline when the POTUS, a sitting US president was censored?????

    1. I want to say better late than never, but the Reasonistas should have seen this coming years ago and fought against it.

      But they went along with the "Muh private company" fiction, even though they knew it was actually organized by political and government actors, because orangemanbad. And now they are reaping the whirlwind.

      1. "was actually organized by political and government actors"


        1. The majestic sea lion in its element.

          1. Asking for proof for big claims is indeed against some people's norms around here...

            1. you could bother to not engage.

            2. Are you a fucking idiot?

              The Biden administration has been saying it's been requesting social media takedowns at every single Psaki press conference.

              The RCMP said it issued the request to GoFundMe to shut down the Convoy's fundraiser at the PM's office's behest.

              Any news story will tell you this, it's common knowledge, but you know that.

              This is why you're a sea lion.

              "Often, sealioning involved asking for evidence for even basic claims"

              1. "Are you a fucking idiot?

                Rhetoric, right?

                1. Definitely rhetorical. QA is both stupid and ignorant, so yes, quite literally an idiot.

              2. "Are you a fucking idiot?

                The Biden administration has been saying "

                Lol, you fucking idiot, the claim is that Trump was taken down, that was during HIS administration you moron!

                1. He used a future projection dumbass

                  Shrike. You could be the dumbest pedophile on the planet.

                    1. That was hilarious.

                  1. Trump used a future projection and so it's Biden's fault?

                    You're incoherent in your conspiracy theories.

      2. Wait until their hosting service targets them for wrongthink.

        Or their bank.

        1. You mean companies may want to disassociate with people who say controversial things? Say it ain't so! It's 1984 I tell's ya Winston!

          1. It totally cool if the government orders them to censor isn’t it fascist?

            1. You're going to hate this my snowflake, but any proof of that you'd care to share?

              1. The mighty sea lion.

              2. Would you actually pay attention?

          2. Vigorously attacking Males, White people, Christians is controversial but not likely to get you deplatformed. Obviously you aren't understanding the mechanics going on here.

            1. People like you aren't socially favored anymore? Welcome to every day in history dude!

              1. People like you aren't socially favored anymore?

                Lol, by who?

          3. But you gotta bake the cake, serf!

          4. This post is after you requested a cite above and we're quickly handed your ass. Just gonna ignore that eh?

            1. "we're quickly handed your ass"


              And, no handing buddy. No cite.

              You don't really know what a 'cite' is, do you? Work with your 'hand' maybe?

              1. 4 or 5 articles today have the links shrike. Educate yourself.

                1. Jesse: I can't be bothered to provide these cites, they are precious, like my bodily fluids!

                  1. Shrike: I can't be bothered to read the articles, I just came here to cry and throw shit because my beloved totalitarian Dems are about to become irrelevant come midterms, and I am facing the complete and utter annihilation of the progshit totalitarian structure."

                2. Jesse, you have broken Shrike. Hope he doesn’t take his rage out on some kids.

  6. This all comes to a head in exactly two weeks--when Trump's social media platform goes online, TRUTH Social. The chances of the progressives--in our government--tolerating Trump's speech--on his own platform--are practically nil. And when the government comes after Trump's speech--on a platform he owns--the interesting observation won't be what this teaches us about free speech. The interesting observation will be about what violating Trump's free speech tells us about TDS.

    Are the libertarians around here ready to stand up for Donald Trump's free speech rights on his own platform? If and when the progressives use their leverage to push TRUTH Social off of the app stores and off the servers--like they did with Parler--will that be fundamentally different from what Biden and the progressives have done to Facebook? Looks like a question of degree to my eye. Maybe one is a issue of manslaughter and the other outright murder, but we're not talking about an objectively substantive difference between them.

    P.S. Can anyone imagine Reason hosting an "Everybody Draw Mohammed" contest anymore?

    1. You know the answer; “Hate speech isn’t protected speech!”

    2. And when the government comes after Trump's speech--on a platform he owns-

      That can still be outsourced and it will look like 'just private companies moderating their own platforms'.

      I know next to nothing about Truth Social, but from a technology standpoint, I suspect:

      1. Cloud provider
      2. Backbone communications providers
      3. Certificate Authority
      4. DNS provider

      And so on. Any one of those can block or shut him down (and have other companies as we know) due to 'terms of service' violations. It's very difficult to be a 'presence' on the web without some sort of other corporate or commercial third party provider.

      1. I believe TRUTH Social is being distributed on Mastodon, which is a zillion self-hosting nodes. It may not be possible for them to shut it down, but that's never stopped the government from trying. Whenever you think it might be too expensive, difficult or futile to do something, always remember the government trying to stop the spread of omicron or the sale of marijuana in this country. Just because stamping out the use of marijuana is futile, doesn't mean the government won't spend trillions of a period of decades, violate the Constitution, and throw millions of people in prison. They fought futile wars in Iraq and Vietnam that were incredibly costly in terms of both treasure and lives, too. Stopping people from listening to Trump may be futile, too, but that doesn't mean they won't do their level best. If it's futile and expensive, that just means it's a job for the government.

      2. Non-falsifiable, the second wheel of the conspiracy nut's bike!

        1. Are you joking? this literally happened to competitive social media services already. WTF imaging being as dumb as this "queen"

          1. What *literally happened?* Be specific and provide proof. Because if you're talking about 'some big companies stopped doing business with people who seemed to be involved in widely denounced stuff' that's....not what you're claiming. That's called 'days that end in Y.'

              1. Nervous laughter (I have no proof!!!). Got it.

                1. It has been linked multiple times today dummy. Sorry we don't cater to your intentional ignorance.

                  1. Put these links here:

                    1. Sea lion. Ooorf ooorf.

            1. Your ignorance is not my concern shrike.

            2. ^^^ claims to have never heard of parler.

            3. This was a big story - Parler was taken down for no real reason besides their being icky. They printed it in the papers and everything. Yeah, there was some boilerplate about TOS violations, but nobody ever said what exactly they were.


              The sort of infrastructure Paul references is backbone technology - exactly the sort of thing common carrier or public accommodation law is made for. Unfortunately the Obama admin coopted Net Neutrality to effect a totally unnecessary price-fixing scheme, sullying the underlying concept.

        2. There's a difference between "non-falsifiable" and "complex."

          1. Non-falsifiable is itself a claim and would need to be proven. But QA has no problem 'just sayin' shit when it comes to xerself.

            1. And yet you are fascinated with the challenging claim?

              Partisan hack hacks. Film at 11.

      3. dont forget their banking services, and even AirBnb might not let their employees stay with them! lol

    3. "when the government comes after Trump's speech"

      Are you willing to bet something about this?

      1. You wouldn’t honor it.

        1. Ah, the per-emptive honor strike!

          1. We’re you trying to say “perv-emptive?
            Are you buttplug?

            1. Yup. QA's definitely the pedo.

            2. No, I was laughing at someone who talks big but can't put their money where their mouth is.

              1. Don’t give yourself any credit.

                1. Poor lil' puss puss, can't back up what he says!

                  In other words, like most conspiracy nuts.

      2. I don't think they'd go so far as to go after the speech of a presidential candidate. That would be an assault on democracy.

    4. Are the libertarians around here ready to stand up for Donald Trump's free speech rights on his own platform?

      This Trump-hating libertarian is absolutely opposed to the government censoring Donald Trump's speech.

      This libertarian is also opposed to trying to insinuate all censorship is really government censorship by proxy, without proof.

      1. The government does not get the benefit of the presumption of innocence. They are always accountable to the People.

        1. Chuck, there is such a thing as truth vs. fiction. Not every action that a company undertakes is done at the behest of some government puppetmaster pulling on the strings. Why can't you accept that sometimes, private individuals act in ways that are in harmony with the government not because the government ordered them to, but because the private company in that instance *willingly agreed* to undertake the action?

          1. Why can't you admit you're a statist who rationalize his authoritarianism?

      2. And yet you are the same asshole who insists Trump started an (non existent) insurrection without any proof.
        Strange how well you can read through the lines so accurately yet not see what stares you in the face.

        1. I never claimed Trump "started an insurrection".
          I do think he bears moral responsibility for what happened on that day for his careless choice of words and his continual stoking of groundless election lies.
          Do you?

          1. Wait, so people are back to having no free agency?

          2. "Go home in peace."

            Now when are we going after Maxine Waters?

      3. Well except for when you advocate corporations do it for the government.

      4. You are not a libertarian but a lying leftist as you prove multiple times daily. Go drink bleach you nitwit.

      5. “This Trump-hating”

        Poor Jeffy doesn’t realize how often he tells on himself.

    5. I thought TRUTH was about demonizing non-medical nicotine.

    6. “Are the libertarians around here ready to stand up for Donald Trump's free speech rights on his own platform?”

      Of course.

    7. Two predictions for TRUTH Social:
      - Many right-wingers will hate it because they have one of the most restrictive ToS agreements I’ve ever seen. Go google it for yourself.
      - It will lose money and fail, because it is run incompetently. After all, it is a Trump joint.

      1. Left to it’s own devices, I’d probably agree.

        But lefty media meltdown about it will ensure a strong following in the early go.

  7. "If Jo had won in2020, what would stop Xi from, say, declaring ownership of the South China Sea and dominating or even invading Japan/Taiwan/Australia? How are we better off if Putin can occupy Estonia and Poland because he feels like it?


    1. NATO is like the cops. Because the police sometimes shoot innocent people for no good reason doesn't mean they're useless. The legitimate purpose of the police is to protect our rights from criminals. The legitimate purpose of NATO is to protect our rights form foreign threats, and to the extent that it's used to deter wars, it is an eminently libertarian device to avoid war. The notion that a libertarian foreign policy only involves opposing any and all wars is nonsense. That's the idea that needs to go out the window.

      I maintain the following:

      General Premise: Mutual defense treaties are a deterrent to war.

      Specific Premise: NATO has successfully deterred Russian aggression against our allies in Europe since 1949.

      Conclusion: Withdrawing from NATO will make war with Russia more likely.

      One of the things we acknowledge as libertarian is that not everyone sees things the way we do or wants the same things we do. I wish it were true that the United States withdrawing from NATO would mean that if Russia invaded Lithuania or Poland, the United States wouldn't be drawn into war. I do not believe the American people are more isolationist now than we were before World War II, back when NATO didn't exist. We were drawn into the war anyway, and that's what I think would happen with Putin aggression again--if there weren't any NATO. The deterrent effect is extremely powerful, and every libertarian who wants the U.S. to avoid a war with Russia should support NATO--when it's being used to deter a foreign invasion of our allies.

      1. NATO is like being forced to pay for and staff a police force in an area where the taxpayer has no say, with laws against against those in the taxpayer’s land and makes it more likely for the criminals in that distant land to target the taxpayers. Crony socialism is bad. End the cycle. Let Europe police Europe.

        1. We don't want to have a say in other people's affairs.

          We leave that shit to the progressives and the neocons.

          We also tolerate speech we don't like. Our NATO mission is to deter war. It is not to interfere in the internal politics of other peoples' countries.

          1. NATO mission is to transfer taxpayer money to crony capitalist military contractors. And it has succeeded at that while taking wealth from Americans and increasing the risk of conflict with a nuclear power. Crony socialism is bad. Let the European market decide what is best for Europe.

            1. ^ Western Europe needs to pay for its own defense. It’s living a fine life of government funded largesse because the government doesn’t pay for its own defense.

            2. "NATO mission is to transfer taxpayer money to crony capitalist military contractors."

              That isn't NATO's mission at all. NATO's mission is to deter war with the Russians, and it's done a great job of that since 1949.

              France and Germany taking advantage of our generosity isn't even really their fault. It's our fault for being so stupid. We can put an end to that be relocating our resources to NATO allies who pay their fair share anytime we want.

              And it's important to understand the difference between crony capitalism and private contractors. Private contractors getting rich on taxpayer money isn't just crony capitalism. It's the anarcho-capitalist dream--which is all about replacing all government services with private contractors.

              Congress failing in its responsibility to oversee private contractors may be a problem, but replacing as much of the government as possible with private contractors is a huge part of the solution to all sorts of other problems. Find me a city that lets developers build things for the city in lieu of fees, and I'll find you a city that's saving their taxpayers' a lot of money.

    2. Malcom In The Middle?

  8. Incidentally, I can't help but think that there would have a been a huge anti-pandemic policy movement against Biden and the progressives already if it hadn't been for their demonization of anyone organizing a protest on social media or holding a demonstration as an insurrectionist. People are afraid to demonstrate against the progressive for fear that Biden and the progressives will sic the FBI's counterterrorism squad on them, like they did with the parents who were protesting against their local school boards.

    They're afraid of being subjected to a show trial liek what's happening to so many of the people in the Capitol riot. The reason progressives defend the murder of Ashli Babbitt isn't because they don't understand that shooting unarmed protesters is indefensible. They know it's indefensible. They just want their non-progressive opponents to be afraid of protesting. They want it to be publicly acceptable when the police fire into crowds of unarmed protesters protesting against the progressives. They want to scare us into silence. Shooting unarmed protesters--and publicly bragging about it--probably has the ultimate chilling effect.

    The reason they get away with this kind of protest in Canada is because Trump isn't their boogeyman in the background anymore. They don't have TDS in Canada like we see among everyone from journalists to chat room commenters. They see these protesters the way they are rather than through the lends of the unspeakable horror that is Donald Trump on a camera with a microphone--saying what he thinks to people who will listen. To them, a bunch of truckers opposing vaccine mandates just looks like a bunch of people opposing pandemic policies. It's so easy to see the world clearly when you don't suffer from TDS.

    1. Isn't it the same with every progressive idea. Nobody dare question the idea of Climate Change, Systemic Racism, The Pandemic, Criticise any of the favoured classes out of fear.
      When this is pointed out, the leftists trot out the fact that those views would be harmful and should be suppressed, and cheer on the synchronisation between the govt and the censors.
      They really are horrible people.

  9. Putin misses his bestie - Donnie Boy. They are cut from the same cloth.

    Soros Pledges $1 Billion To Battle 'Would-Be, Actual Dictators,' Blasts Trump, Putin. U.S. billionaire and liberal activist George Soros has pledged $1 billion to help create a new university network to aid civil society in a world increasingly ruled by what he says are "would-be and actual dictators," aiming blistering criticism at the U.S., Russian, and Chinese leaders.

    1. Being denounced by a nazi collaborator is a badge of honor to any decent human being. You wouldn’t know that being a sociopath and all.

      1. That isn’t another child porn link, is it?

      2. Only you dumbass wingnuts "denounce" him for forging documents to free Jews from the Nazis.

        As a philanthropist he has fought the Soviet Union, communism in the former USSR states, communist China, and fascism in Eastern Europe.

        No wonder you fascists hate him.

        1. I’m sure he put that in his bio.

          1. And you believed it.

            1. But I am certain all you "know" about Soros is what you have heard right-wing nutcases say about him.

              Soros has spent billions fighting authoritarian communists and fascists. And billions more fighting the drug war and bad cops.

              Any libertarian should defend him.

              I do not expect an honest reply from you. Your mind is slammed shut.

              1. Goddamn you are a sick fuck.

                1. Uh, Soros has spent a lot of time fighting communists. Tell me your opinion of him was not only formed from reading stupid right wing online nonsense?

                  1. I guess helping the Nazis counts as fighting communism.

                    1. Your ignorance (self imposed?) is impressive.

                2. Pedophiles are very sick.

              2. There’s fucking video of him admitting he helped Nazi’s you sick pedo.

        2. turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a pathological liar, a trafficker in kiddie porn, and a TDS-addled asshole, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
          If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
          turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

        3. Weird. I quoted him supporting China and saying we need to shift to them overtaking America economically and you ignored it.

        4. Buttplugs's hero. 60 minutes interview with Blofeld Soros

      3. I doubt it's a sociopath. or even a psychopath. Just a run of the mill self-centered pedophile leftist, and not very bright.

    2. Have I mentioned how wonderful it is that you literally cannot stop talking about Drumpf? Even though he's been out of the White House for over a year? And has no chance whatsoever of returning? And is banned from social media?

      Well, just in case — it IS wonderful. The sign of a psychologically healthy and mature individual. Please keep bringing up Drumpf in every thread for as long as exists.


      1. "And has no chance whatsoever of returning? "

        Uh, he's incredibly popular with Republicans and their officials practically break their knees genuflecting to him. I mean, you're a very silly parody account, I get it, but parody has to have some small basis in reality dude.

        1. OBL wants me to defend Biden - which I only do when liars lie about him.

          I actually don't approve of much, if any, of Biden's policies to date.

          1. turd lies; it’s all he ever does.turd is a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
            If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
            turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

            1. This guy is obsessed with poop.

              1. Samefagging your own posts is pathetic even for you, Shrike.

                1. His pride and joy (account-wise, not his collection of Tiger Beat) keeps getting called out not only for the shitposting but for the child porn.

                2. Jesus this obsession with 'Shrike' is sad dude.

                  Get out of your mom's basement, meet people. They mostly won't bite. They are not all Shrike.

                  1. Lol. Youre shrike. Only your socks get called shrike.

    3. Lol. You still ignore all of the actions soros takes like paying for staff for DA offices if they act in the manner he and his organization decides. Instead you push his lies. Fucking hilarious.

    4. Turn yourself in for your crimes, paedophile.

  10. Soros calls China's Xi Jinping 'the greatest threat that open societies face today’
    Soros says China will use Olympics to 'score propaganda victory for its system of strict controls'

    "In an open society, the role of the state is to protect the freedom of the individual," Soros said. "In a closed society the role of the individual is to serve the rulers of the state."

    FOX NEWS! So proud of them!

    1. urrd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a TDS-addled asshole, traffics in kiddie porn and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

      1. OH, NO! Stalked by a muted steaming pile of lefty shit.
        Fuck off and die, asshole.

    2. Oh. That undoes the last decade of actions soros has taken in support. You truly are an idiot shrike. A propagandist.

    3. Get sodomized with a sharpened eggbeater, kiddie-porn cranker.

  11. So...

    Is censorship ALWAYS wrong?

    If censorship is not ALWAYS wrong, when is it acceptable, and when is it not acceptable?

    This is the debate we ought to be having.

    1. It’s always wrong you nazi fuck.

      1. Is it?

        Suppose you go to a party at a friend's house, where you tell a crude joke. Your friend is offended and disgusted by your joke, and immediately demands that you leave. Are your friend's actions wrong? Should your friend be forced to tolerate your offensive speech on his property in his presence?

        1. It depends. Is your friend in the running for multi-billion-dollar contracts with the government? Is the government threatening his neighborhood association with anti-trust action? Is the government telling him what he should find offensive?

          1. ^this

            Again, the government does not get the presumption of innocence. Companies with government contracts or with large clients with government contracts violate the 1st Amendment when they censor speech to the benefit of agents of the government.

            1. So, free speech rights trump private property rights?

              1. Even you don’t believe what you’re saying.

                1. I see. So when CTSP wrote "Companies with government contracts or with large clients with government contracts violate the 1st Amendment when they censor speech to the benefit of agents of the government.", trying to enforce the First Amendment on private companies WOULDN'T be an abrogation of their private property rights? Even if they have government contracts?

                  If one tries to claim that private companies should be forced to tolerate speech on their property that they don't want to tolerate, then that is placing a higher value on free speech than private property.

                  Do you agree, or not?

                  1. You've been trying to rationalize censorship under fascist corporation for a few days now.

                    1. He's been rationalizing it for 6 years.

                  2. No. You are twisting what I said. The private company cannot be forced to take the contract. THAT is their free choice. Once they do, they don't get to silence their critics. Everybody paid for it. Everybody gets to have their say. Anything less is anti-democratic.

              2. There's false dilemmas and then there's this.
                Congratulations you disingenuous cunt. This might be a new low even for you.

              3. So, free speech rights trump private property rights?

                Yes, when that property was paid for by taxpayers through government contracts.

                When everybody chips in to pay you to do something, you lose your right to silence the critics. It is a free market. If you don't like the exposure, you don't have to take the contract.

          2. Why do these conditions matter? Under what conditions should a private property owner be forced against his/her will to tolerate offensive speech on his/her own property?

            1. The internet is your personal property. Got it.

              1. Chemjeff and pals own the planet's discourse.

                The very white Daily Beast and the very white Democratic Party super-PAC, the SPLC, just called the very nonwhite but conservative speaker Michelle Malkin a "White Supremacist". Based on obvious and deliberate lying.

                Because of this the SPLC had AirBnB ban Malkin's entire family, not just Malkin but her relatives too, from using AirBnB.


                Fighting fake fascism with actual fascism.

                It's not enough to tar brown people as white supremacists and ban them from the internet. You have to ban them from services, and credit, and accommodations. And then you include their families too. Guilt by blood.

                White Democrats haven't banned brown people so effectively over racial issues since Separate But Equal.

                This is what chemjeff's arguing for.

                1. Actually, they called her a White Nationalist Ally. And that doesn't seem to be too far from the truth.

                  Tell us, ML, should AirBNB be forced by the government to serve Michelle Malkin as a customer even if they don't want to?

                  1. They should be neutral since money is amoral. Capitalism fails if it's purposely conscious. In fact, it's supposed to be in the best interest of businesses to not care who their customers are.

                    1. No, that is just a stereotype of capitalism, that it is nothing but profit profit profit. That is the Ferengi stereotype of capitalism.

                      Look at Chick-Fil-A - they refuse to open on Sundays out of respect for the Sabbath. They put their moral consciences ahead of profit, and more power to them for that. Same deal with AirBNB.

                    2. This is the same jeff who said the US shouldn't enforce trading blocks on Chinese goods using slave labor or involved with the genocide in China.

                  2. "And that doesn't seem to be too far from the truth"

                    Well it is. It's a big, fat fucking lie and a smear job by a Democratic Party PAC hopping mad that they were slagging the party.

                    Tell us, ML, should AirBNB be forced by the government to serve Michelle Malkin as a customer even if they don't want to?"

                    I could say "tell us, chemjeff, should AirBNB be forced by the government to serve homosexuals as customers even if they don't want to?"

                    This matches your inference but isn't what's happening here.

                    A more accurate question would be "tell us, chemjeff, should AirBNB be pressured by the Republican Party to refuse customers who talk smack about them?"

            2. So you are fine with whites only businesses jeff? Want you on record.

              You are also fine with governments asking taxpayer funded corporations to censor?

          3. Seems like, if the government is pressuring private companies not censorship, the fix should be made to government. The private company being subjected to coercion is the victim.

        2. By your logic your friends “home”
          is the whole goddamn internet.
          And how does an individual kick you off of that? He doesn’t, your daddy the government does.

          1. No, I'm referring to a literal party. But if you want a more Internet-focused example, suppose you post a crude joke on your friend's forum, your friend is offended and decides to ban you from his forum. Are your friend's actions here wrong? Is it impermissible censorship?

            1. That wouldn’t be wrong.
              The government telling corporations who to ban would be.

              1. That wouldn’t be wrong.

                I see, so when you wrote

                It’s always wrong you nazi fuck

                that was an incorrect statement coupled with a gratuitous insult. I'll accept your apology now.

                1. You deserved it you Nazi fuck. Every post you make here is an argument for censorship.

                  1. Really? Including this one?


                    This Trump-hating libertarian is absolutely opposed to the government censoring Donald Trump's speech.

                    1. Nobody believed that for a second. You have a long history of saying the exact opposite.

                      Also, you left off the fascist bit at the end.

                      "This libertarian is also opposed to trying to insinuate all censorship is really government censorship by proxy"

                      Why was that?

                    2. Nobody believed that for a second.

                      I see. So this is like denying evidence presented to you in order to sustain the false pretenses of your narrative. Is that it?

                    3. No, it's you leaving out the following paragraph because it contradicted your narrative.

                      You're terrible at this. You're habitually dishonest but inept at it at the same time. Your boss at the fifty-cent factory should dock your pay.

                  2. And by calling me a Nazi in earnest, you simply water down that term to the point of nothingness. Do you want the term Nazi to be one that has poignant meaning, or not? Think carefully before you rush to offend people.

                    1. "you simply water down that term to the point of nothingness."

                      No I don't.

                      You've argued here for a reworked Nazi racial theory, corporatist economic policies, kirchenkampf, Aktion T4-style abortion and euthanasia, anti-Zionism, censorship and a dictatorship of the elite.

                      When I call you a Nazi, I mean that literally. Just like Anton Drexler and Karl Harrer.

                    2. Well, then that is about as absurd as the argument from GG a little while ago that Milton Friedman was actually a socialist. It is just bizarre. You're an unhinged lunatic.

                    3. And, if you think I really am a literal Nazi, then you will never publicly agree with me even in cases when you think I'm correct, isn't that so? I mean, you can't really be seen agreeing with a Nazi, can you?

                      So, you'll try to 'disprove' everything I write. If I write something that is unobjectionable, then you'll change the subject or cloud the issue or move the goalposts or otherwise engage in some trick in order to generate doubt and controversy so that you will always be seen as opposing me no matter what. Isn't that right ML?

                    4. And, if you think I really am a literal Nazi, then you will never publicly agree with me even in cases when you think I'm correct

                      Sure, if Hitler said "that's a nice sunset" or "silk pajamas feel nice" I'd agree with him. But I'd still think he was an evil fascist fuck, just like I think you are.

                      I think you underestimate how much you and your opinions repel and disgust me.

                    5. LOL you even objected to my assertion that you would object to everything that I say. That is just perfect. Thanks for proving me right. No honest discussion with you is possible.

        3. The internet isn't your "home" Jeff. You don't get to kick discussion you don't like out of the world.

          1. What of bears are in trunks?

            1. Speedos or boxers? Is that his kink?

        4. well I guess you're right then! Asking a rude fuck to leave your home is the same thing as the government/media complex shutting down free discussion about ... things.

          1. So if censorship isn't always wrong, when is it acceptable and when is it not acceptable?

            1. Your friend is offended and disgusted by your joke, and immediately demands that you leave. Are your friend's actions wrong?

              Nope. Nor are they censorship. Your friend is not stopping you from telling the joke again once you leave or even telling it to everyone in the room on your way out. He is also not stopping anyone in the room from inviting you to their party in the future, where you may or may not tell the offensive joke again.

              Now if your friend stopped inviting the people who laughed at your jokes to his future parties and then lobbied others to do the same you might be able to make a case for censorship. If your friend started calling around to your work, your other friends, your local bank and reported your behavior and then insisted those entities also do something about your joke telling, that might be in line. If your friend taped your joke and then posted it to social media as a way to disparage you further, now we are getting somewhere.

              Asking someone to leave because of offense? I would consider that normal civilized behavior and within your individual right.

              1. Jeff is a collectivist and will never understand what you wrote.

        5. How do bears armed with AR-15s play into this scenario?

      2. Such the individualist!

      1. Do you agree with this?

          1. Funny, my version of libertarianism does not include mindlessly raging against authority. There is such a thing as legitimate authority and there is such a thing as decorum and standards. I guess that makes me more of a conservative on this issue, ironically.

            Now, there is a time and place for offense, I agree. But that should be a very careful consideration, and with respect for private property rights, as I describe below. But I don't automatically agree that offending the Powers That Be is a necessarily libertarian thing to do.

            1. You are right. Your form of libertarianism is Italian fascism.

            2. "Funny, my version of libertarianism does not include mindlessly raging against authority."

              That's right, your version of "libertarianism" requires suckholing to authority. Your version is more popularly called "authoritarianism" in social theory.

              1. My version of libertarianism involves using one's brain, not rushing for a dopamine hit trying to get the "sickest burn".

                I know that is a strange concept for some of you, who think that libertarianism is the philosophical equivalent of spending one's entire life with the mentality of a toddler - "you can't make me do it, you're not the boss of me!"

                1. Oh. Thats why you advocate for shutting down all speech that runs counter to your brain. Even when said statist sources have consistently been proven wrong.

                  You dont use a brain. You repeat state messaging as a propagandist.

                2. Wow, you're super mad. Good, because now you're exposing your ravings as the nonsense it is.

                  Here's the thing, Jeff. You don't get to define libertarianism. It's already got a definition:

                  And that sure as fuck doesn't match your philosophy.

                  But you know what does?

                  1. Wait wait wait. I thought we couldn't trust Wikipedia since it was edited by evil progressives.

                    1. Do you want another source with the same definition?


                      We can scour the whole internet and never find one that matches your definition.

              2. Your version of "libertarianism" is apparently letting the mob run amok and forming their own Committee on Public Safety in order to maintain a semblance of order.

                1. Lol. The only one advocating for commissions on public safety is you fucktard.

                  With masks. With lockdowns. With vaccines. With "misinformation."

                  Weird attack on those who are fine with actual freedoms.

            3. Nobody here believes you’re a libertarian.

              1. Nobody.
                Not even Jeff, which is what makes his protestations extra pathetic.

              2. His fellow libertarian Juan Peron vouches for his individualist creds.

    2. Yes, Jeff, censorship is always wrong. A publishing house can choose to print or no, but this is different. An individual can choose to say something, or not, but if the choice is driven by external factors that are similar to the ochlocrastic bs we are seeing now, then this is wrong. What's your next thought experiment, is rounding up ethnic or religious minorities, and interning them always wrong?

    3. Fatjeff compliant tool, it's always wrong.


      You can say whatever the fuck you want, discuss it, promote it and try to find people to agree.

      If people don't like it they can leave or refute it.

      Fuck your feelings and the oppression you use them to excuse.

  12. The last 2 years tell us there is a double standard when it comes to "free" speech. If you say things that are deemed acceptable, you are free to say them. If you say things that are deemed "misinformation" you will be canceled and deplatformed. If you find a new platform, an effort will be made to undermine that platform as well. And 95% of the national news media will cheer on the assault on free speech.

    And the double standard extends to protests as well. If your protest is on behalf of causes deemed acceptable, the part that isn't mostly peaceful will be excused, dismissed, and lightly prosecuted, with charges being dropped or downgraded. If your protest is on behalf of causes deemed unacceptable and part of it becomes less than peaceful, no effort will be spared to track you down, charge you to the full extent of the law, force you to sign a loyalty oath, cut off your access to the internet, or worse, leave you rotting in jail with no charges. And the side shouting "civil rights" thinks that makes sense.

    1. But what if I told you… Orange Man Bad?

      1. Evidently that’s the individual the individualist is fixated on.

  13. Dr. John Campbell gets a little testy that a Facebook's factcheck called the British Medical Journal a misinformation spreading blog and banned some of its papers.

    The British Medical Journal's reaction:

    For those with sarcasmic-level educations, the British Medical Journal is the world's premier (and oldest) science journal. This is the equivalent of calling NASA a local astronomy club for flat-earthers.

    This Facebook censorship is based on Shrike and chemjeff type agitprop. Unbelievable stupidity and ignorance coupled with overweening arrogance.
    This is the wages of their idiocy. Top international scientists and scientific journals being censored by first-year journalism students for not meeting the narrative.

    1. It was a group of 30 year olds who grew up on Blues Clues and were tasked by the politburo of finding some reason, any reason, to condemn the pesky BMJ for violating the narrative. They'd probably never heard of it until then.

      1. But millions and millions of doctors worldwide have. I mean the BMJ is the final word in medicine.
        The first papers ever on sepsis, anesthesia, and cigarettes causing cancer were published in the BMJ. It's required reading in every medical university and hospital in the world.

        And now Facebook has censored it as a misinformation peddling blog.

        Scientists, doctors, pharmacists and nurse practitioners worldwide are going to be wondering what the hell is going on.

        And all for the DNC and chemjeff's narrative.

        1. Good Lord. You are such an overly dramatic jackass.

          First, I thought you were lecturing me earlier about how science is an evolving process of discovery. Now you are telling me that certain experts are the "FINAL WORD" and should be trusted without question? Hmm, sure sounds like top-men-ism to me.

          Second, the label that Facebook put on that one BMJ article was that it was "missing context". That's it. Not that it was "misinformation". Not that the BMJ was a "misinformation blog". None of that. That is all your invention.

          Third, the article, insofar as it was a NEWS STORY, really was missing context. To wit, that the whistleblower in the BMJ expose on Pfizer's vaccine trials had herself made negative social media comments trashing the vaccine. If you really want people to judge for themselves, don't you think this is a relevant piece of information? Hmm?

          This sounds a lot more like the Brits being unhappy that someone dared to criticize their article, rather than some egregious Facebook censorship crusade.

          But, you being you, you'll frame it in the worst possible light in order to gaslight the hardest.

          1. You are an utter liar.
            Everything you just said was a complete lie from top to bottom.

            It's hard to fisk your post because I don't know where to start. Usually I can focus on the bits where you lied, but when every sentence is a complete and total lie it's hard to know where to start.

            1. If you'd read the BMJ's complaint your pals were blocking access and shadowbanning both the organization and people sharing the content.

            2. This doesn't affect a few people. Hundreds of thousands of universities and hospitals share BMJ content daily. BMJ journals are a vital part of a doctor's professional development.

            3. It wasn't just "Missing Context". They said "Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people". This was a libelous lie.
            The peer review at the BMJ is the most prestigious in the world. You have Nobel winners scrambling to fill positions. They fact-checked their article using actual virologists, but you think j-school drop-outs are qualified to shut them down.

            4. The "fact-checkers" based their fact check solely on a reply from Pfizer. The company being dressed down by the BMJ. You don't think that was an enormous conflict of interest?

            5. It was a published paper. Not a "NEWS STORY" you dishonest fuck. It wasn't "missing context", whatever the fuck that means. This wasn't just the whistleblower but a comprehensive review of Pfizer's procedures, which even the company admitted were wanting.

            6. Seriously, "missing context" is utterly meaningless jargon used as an excuse to censor. It's undefinable weasel wording. And so is "Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people". What qualifies the "Independent fact-checkers"? And "could" sits there like the biggest cop-out ever.

            "First, I thought you were lecturing me earlier about how science is an evolving process of discovery."

            It absolutely is, but it wasn't me talking about it. Though I completely agree with them.

            "Now you are telling me that certain experts are the "FINAL WORD" and should be trusted without question? Hmm, sure sounds like top-men-ism to me."

            Then you're a retard. Not censoring and allowing experts to speak, debate and publish, isn't the same thing as handing them control over your life. I know you understand this distinction, but you're deliberately arguing in bad-faith which allows you to write that.

            I could go on, but I'm so repelled by you that I don't really want to unless I have to.

            1. No, this is just a pose. You're a drama queen.

              Your entire response is just meaningless hyperventilating. You're upset that someone didn't take the BMJ as the WORD OF GOD.
              They are not above criticism, you know. But I do just want to point out this one thing:

              4. The "fact-checkers" based their fact check solely on a reply from Pfizer. The company being dressed down by the BMJ. You don't think that was an enormous conflict of interest?

              Don't you think that if one wanted to know the WHOLE TRUTH about Pfizer's practices, one would at least want to know Pfizer's side of the story? Hmm? Perhaps if one were to publish an article critical of Pfizer, but didn't get Pfizer's side of the story, one might fairly label that story as "missing context"?

              I'm not going to be a part of your BMJ hero-worship and nor should anyone else.

              1. Don't strain your back, waterboy.

                Because that's a real load of BS to peddle - fact checkers based a reply SOLELY (meaning singular source incase reading comprehension is the issue) on a response from Pfizer, the company being lambasted in this peer-reviewed and cited scientific publication (which, again, is not a fucking news story you partisan shill.)

                But you want the WHOLE truth, and see nothing wrong with a bunch of underqualified fact-checkers flagging the world's most esteemed scientist for raising concerns outside the narrative.

                Fuck you, go get boosted again.

  14. Are free speech rights more important than private property rights?

    From my thinking, private property rights are the foundation for all other natural rights, starting with the right to self-ownership. The right to free speech is a *consequence* of private property rights. I only have the right to speak my mind because I own my mind and my thoughts in the first place. A claim that free speech rights trump private property rights seems very strange to me - it is like claiming the roof of a house is more important than its foundation, when, if it wasn't for the foundation, there wouldn't be a roof or a house in the first place.

    But, if you think that free speech rights trump private property rights, let's hear your arguments as to why.

    1. Free speech is the foundation of property rights. Ownership wouldn't exist if you were forbidden to assert it.

      1. Nice attempt at pretending the issue is property rights and not corporatism though.

      2. So how does that work exactly? Again this is like claiming the roof of a house is more important than the foundation. Free speech rights are not even possible without property rights, specifically self-ownership.

        1. What the hell are you on about?
          Free speech is the foundation.
          You can own nothing and still be allowed to voice your opinion, but you can't own anything if you don't have the freedom to claim it or declare ownership.

          1. I did explain that part about self-ownership, right? First and foremost I must have the right to own my own body, including my mind and my thoughts, before free speech is even possible.

            1. I did explain that part about self-ownership, right?

              Lol, that's not what "property rights" mean and you know it, you disingenuous fuck.

              1. So you've never heard of self-ownership? Wait wait wait. Of course you have! Surely, an educated "libertarian" such as yourself would have heard of such a foundational concept as that.


                Self-ownership, also known as sovereignty of the individual or individual sovereignty, is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one's own body and life. Self-ownership is a central idea in several political philosophies that emphasize individualism, such as libertarianism, liberalism, and anarchism.

                No, you have heard of it, you understand it, but you refuse to acknowledge it in my presence, because that would be dignifying my answers, and you can't do that, because I'm a supposed Nazi. So you play these games so that you are always on the opposite side of me.

                Face it, you don't actually have a coherent philosophy behind your premise that free speech rights are more important than private property rights. You simply are opposing me for the sake of opposing me, because you think I'm a literal Nazi, and therefore you must oppose everything that I say and do. Do you even give a shit about the relationship between free speech rights and property rights? Well, probably, on some level, but you aren't going to discuss it with *me*, are you? Because that would mean actually dignifying my responses, which you cannot do. The only reason to post anything in response to me is to insult me and object to what I say, because what's most important here is to troll and silence the "Nazi" rather than have a discussion. You'd be quite happy if I left Reason and never came back, wouldn't you? Then the place would be free from supposed Nazis like myself, isn't that right?

                Ironically, YOU are the type of person who is most akin to those who want to ban Joe Rogan. They believe he uses his platform in such a dangerous way that he must be silenced, by force if necessary, in order to prevent the harm that they believe his platform generates. By your actions here, you demonstrate that you are a lot closer to this mindset when applied to people like myself. You think my ideas are wrong, so you label them as "Nazi" and do everything that you can to try to have me deplatformed and run out of town. You are the one behaving more like the left-wing cancel-culture censors, not me. You are the one who cannot handle arguing against ideas you disagree with so you try to silence them. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but if you were to do that, that would mean taking advice from a supposed Nazi, so you won't do that, instead, you'll just post some spittle-filled ragepost full of insults and more Nazi references.

                1. Fatjeff compliant moron, you described something spiritual when talking about a tangible fucking couch.

                  Why do you punish yourself like this?

    2. Stop rationalizing your authoritarianism.

      These corporations do not operate outside of politics you ignorant fuck. They recoeve billions of taxpayers funds and are regulated heavily. They have a lobbyist cycle of politicians to corporations. They are doing the bidding of government and the DNC you disingenuous retard.

      Stop with your ignorant sophistry to hide your authoritarianism.

      1. So the profit motive is weaker than "the bidding of the DNC." What is this bidding? Strongly worded emails?

        If corporations are woke, that means you're losing the culture war not only on campuses, in the media, and in government, but in fucking corporations.

        I'd consider just giving up your mean-spirited quest to hurt non-white non-Christian non-straights. That's what I'd do.

        1. But mean-spirited quests to crush conservative opposition by levering government power on private enterprised while pursuing their base through national security agencies and the IRS is totes cool, amirite?

  15. US truckers, surely all conservatives, complaining about not being able to cross back and forth into Canada without proof of Covid vaccination while complaining that illegal migrants are crossing the southern border without proof of or being vaccinated. Classic! Fucking hypocrites!

    1. On 2007 democrats were offered immigrants work visas to protect voting rights and abuse of the welfare state. They denied it.


    2. So if illegal immigrants can wander the southern border at will then surely trucks should never need stop for Canadian Customs and Border enforcement...

    3. Little bit of chronology might help.

      Unvaccinated migrants being shuttled around the nation came first. It has not changed.

      THEN truckers were told they had to be jabbed to do their jobs.

      Make a bit more sense now?

  16. Free speech was invented before the internet was a twinkle in Al Gore's eye. The internet means speech has never been more free. It's literally free. No barriers to entry. No publishers as we knew them before. Any shithole country peasant can post their every brain fart to the entire species.

    Rightwing speech hysteria is, as is everything else they do, a lie and a farce. They're actually burning books right now. They don't care about anyone's theoretical freedom, they care about their own power. I'm not saying anything that's not totally obvious.

    No conservative or libertarian has any goddamn business holding the opinion that private corporations ought to be forced by government to publish speech against their will. That's patently absurd. You people need to figure the fuck out what road you're going down.

    1. Democrats can go ahead and scream all day for government censorship because they obviously don’t care about that sort of thing. Absolutely right!

      1. What? You're the one who wants the government to violate the free speech rights of Twitter Inc., are you not? Presumably also teachers?

        Control control control, that's all you're agitating for, and it's because you're scared. But you've been made scared by the media you consume.

        Maybe there are things to be scared of, but they're not the things you've been duped into. Joe Rogan is not even canceled. He's being criticized. You are so sunk in to a curated right-wing narrative that you would set the constitution on fire if it meant you didn't have to hear contrary opinions.

        1. When you fantasize about me, is my dick out?

        2. You're the one who wants the government to violate the free speech rights of Twitter Inc"

          Free speech rights? So is Twitter with a board of governors, shareholders, management, employees and customers, etc to be regarded as a person under the constitution?

          I'm not entirely sure a guy like you would enjoy the implications.

          1. I just don't see how it's much different from putting a gun to a publisher's head and forcing them to print your manifesto.

    2. What is your opinion on the government telling private companies to censor their users? Still free speech?

      Fucking partisan shill. Go suck off your masters again, your moustache is getting dry.

  17. I wonder where Gillespie will stand when the Left decides tbe Reason Foundation is a hate group and businesses like AirBnB deny him service?

    1. Does Michelle Malkin have a right to AirBNB's services?

      1. She has a right to not be harassed by a hate group like the SPLC.

    2. Nick will conduct a ten minute interview and spin it into a dozen articles.

  18. Yep here's Reason, which has been silent about Kaepernick's free speech and that of millions of black Americans, going nutso over Joe Rogan's free speech.

    1. But muh private enterprise!

      Kapernick pissing off the NFL fanbase and coaches knowing better than to hire a toxic asset is not in any way conparable to a coordinated gov't campaign to pressure companies into censoring and promulgating desired propoganda.

      1. Kapernick just wasn't that good a player.

        The most hilarious thing about this douche's drive by post is Kapernick wasn't shut out. He was offered a gig but turned it down because it wasn't a starting position and his girlfriend blasted the owner on Twitter as a slave plantation master.

  19. Reason supported Joe Biden.
    Reason supported censorship by doing so.

Please to post comments