Has America Given Up on Free Speech?

A review of Mchangama's "Free Speech."

Most people have at least some family and friends with whom they disagree about religion, politics, and other neuralgic topics. We maintain relationships with these people because some commonality encourages us to look past our disagreements with them--because we have some basis for trusting them and their good will towards us, notwithstanding our differences. We may even engage now and then with these friends and family in a reasonably civil way (though, if surveys are correct, more and more Americans drop friends and family members because of politics, mostly liberals dropping conservatives, apparently, rather than the other way around).

It would be silly to expect the level of trust we have for friends and family to extend to society at large. Yet, social trust has a very important role in public discourse. It allows us to engage our fellow citizens without expecting the worst of them, without thinking they are out to get us--in short, without personalizing debate in a way that makes everyone defensive and angry.

In a review of Jacob Mchangama's new book, Free Speech, at the Law & Liberty site today, I argue that this social trust has frayed greatly, and that Americans' problems with free speech result more from social breakdown than from a failed commitment to abstract ideas about expression. Here's an excerpt:

It is a striking feature of American life in the first quarter of the 21st century that we have somehow created a culture in which everyone feels aggrieved. This is especially true when it comes to free speech. Both conservatives and progressives believe their opponents are out to silence them—not just beat them in debates and prevail against them in elections, but intimidate them, put them on mute permanently, eliminate any possibility of resistance. Many on each side see the other as not simply wrong, but ill-motivated and dangerous, an existential threat to be defeated before it is too late.

This state of affairs is more the norm in American history than we care to admit. Perhaps because we see ourselves in providential terms—"the last best hope of earth," as Lincoln said—Americans always have been sensitive to threats our democracy faces and often have worried about enemies within spreading "disinformation." Eras of Good Feeling occur relatively rarely. Even so, the level of recrimination just now seems quite high, and many Americans apparently believe we must silence our opponents before they succeed in silencing us.

In Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media, Jacob Mchangama maintains that a renewed commitment to free expression can help us through these perfervid times. Mchangama, a lawyer and the founder of Justitia, a human-rights organization in Denmark, has written a programmatic history that "connect[s] past speech controversies with the most pressing contemporary ones." Today's debates about free expression recapitulate those of long ago, he believes, and just as our ancestors did, we must defend the right to speak against those who would take it away.

To write a comprehensive history like this one is an ambitious undertaking, and Free Speech is a mixed success. Mchangama writes engagingly and has done his research. The chapters on the Internet and social media are especially good. But even at 500 pages, a history that spans thousands of years and many civilizations is bound to be a bit superficial at times. Moreover, as he himself recognizes, tolerance for others' speech depends as much on culture as it does on law—and in today's polarized, distrustful America, we are less and less likely to give our opponents the benefit of the doubt and let them have their say even if the law permits it.

You can read the whole essay here.

Comments

[DaveM]

I absolutely agree that recommitting to respecting other people's right to speak freely and openly will help us right now. It is surely the very best thing we can do, in fact, because if we cannot speak to one another we will never be able to solve our problems.

My take on this differs a little bit from the reviewer's. Yes, there has been a loss of trust, but there's also just been a loss of simple practice. People can't argue well because they simply don't have enough experience doing it. Cancel culture is more about people just throwing their hands up and walking away than it is about fundamental disagreements.

Personally, I lay this lack of practice to small family size. I came from a family of 5 children. I learned how to have difficult conversations and how to negotiate practically from the moment I learned how to speak. Practice makes perfect. If you aren't used to living in a pluralistic society, it's like moving to Alaska having been born in Miami.

I have a couple of blog posts on it where I try to teach a few principles of how to argue well. They say "write what you know".

[DaivdBehar]

"...and in today's polarized, distrustful America, we are less and less likely to give our opponents the benefit of the doubt and let them have their say even if the law permits it."

Do not fall for the scam of the tech billionaire owned media. They are hyping and lying about the divisiveness of the nation. We are strongly unified by the need to get shit done, and to make money. Perhaps, 1% of conversations are divisive, and that is for fun and to escape from hard work. This is more lawyer bullshit.

This is more fake lawyer hysteria. I suggest an 1899 vibrator for orgasm, as a relief.

[Currentsitguy]

Man, as an only child I must be doomed then.

[DaveM]

No, not "doomed", but strange as it may sound, I do think that successfully rising above struggles and difficulties can be a kind of privilege. No doubt there are many unique challenges faced when growing up as an only child, and those are privileges, too.

Where I differ from the normal formulation of privilege, however, is that I believe that privileges should never be wasted, and certainly never used to silence people. Everyone's privileges should be used -- used for good.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Cancel culture is more about people just throwing their hands up and walking away than it is about fundamental disagreements."

You know, if cancel culture were only about somebody throwing their hands up and walking away, who would be scared of it? I thought it was about throwing your hands up and forcing the other guy to walk away or be dragged away.

How does shouting down a speaker, or trying to get somebody fired, amount to "walking away"?

I do think you have something right about small family sizes, particularly only children.

But I think another part of it is academia being taken over by an intolerant ideology, and the coming generation having been marinated in that intolerance for years at college.

[Gandydancer]

There was a recent column her about a HS basketball coach who was fired for objecting to a "BLM curricula" being forced on his daughter in the aftermath of the Floyd death.

Firing someone is not "walking away".

And the excerpt quoted is more than enough. In the real world the grievances aren't equal, and no book that pretends they are is worth my time.

[Ed Grinberg]

In the real world the grievances aren't equal, and no book that pretends they are is worth my time.

I think you're referring to this passage:

Both conservatives and progressives believe their opponents are out to silence them—not just beat them in debates and prevail against them in elections, but intimidate them, put them on mute permanently, eliminate any possibility of resistance.

It struck me as odd too. In what way, exactly, are conservatives "out to silence ['progressives']"?

[Gandydancer]

I don't care for the term "conservative", adopted often by people who I despise and want no association with. What I am is "not left-wing".

T he whole tenor of the section quoted was that of false equivalence, not just the one passage. In the real world we know that in this country both sides are not equally under attack.

[Gandydancer]

I should say, "both camps". And I'm clear that I'm in the camp that is on the defense, even though I don't care for everyone in that camp and wouldn't trust them with the whip hand. But it's relatively rare for them to have it, and this book clearly ignores that.

[DaveM]

The point isn't that cancel culture is only about people walking away from difficult conversations, but mostly about it. Cancellations don't happen like a light switch, on or off, they're on a spectrum. You walk up to the extreme end -- trying to get someone fired, for example -- by first closing your ears and refusing to listen.

Here's the test: when was the last time you had a serious conversation with someone who fundamentally disagreed with you, and, after you both had a full chance to say your piece, you changed the conversation, went out for a meal together and had a good time?

If your answer is "I can't remember when", then you are a contributor to cancel culture. That may be a hard truth. I'm not saying it will be easy, I'm just saying it will be worth it in the end, and you can't just pick it up and do it without working on it.

[Ed Grinberg]

Here's the test: when was the last time you had a serious conversation with someone who fundamentally disagreed with you, and, after you both had a full chance to say your piece, you changed the conversation, went out for a meal together and had a good time?
If your answer is "I can't remember when", then you are a contributor to cancel culture.

Bullshit. Me refusing to engage with you is not the same as trying to "cancel" you (by getting you fired, disinvited, "deplatformed," etc. or just shouting you down, disruption your events, physically attacking you). There is no moral equivalence there.

[EscherEnigma]

Ah yes, because I don't want to break bread with someone falling back on Anita Bryant's lies about gay people, I'm the real villain here.

Makes perfect sense.

[LiborCon]

“but there's also just been a loss of simple practice. People can't argue well because they simply don't have enough experience doing it.”

People can’t argue well because they’re ignorant. They have strong opinions on subjects they know nothing about. But their hubris prevents them from learning anything, why should they if they believe they already know all there is to know?

Instead of using facts and data they resort to copy and paste answers that support their ideology. And they rely heavily on logical fallacies.

Someone on Twitter posted factual information to support their argument and the response was “But this [data] only goes to 2016”. That’s all they had to rebut facts but that's all they needed because they know they're right.

Having a debate with someone who’s ignorant is as fruitless as having one with a small child.

[PeteRR]

I'm happy to allow anyone to say anything. The problem comes in when individuals and government look to private companies to censor on their behalf. Their hands stay clean and in theory the 1st amendment is respected.

A good start for the average person is to stop joining the howling mob when it first gets going.

[DaveM]

Yes, we could all benefit by being MUCH more skeptical and less like a pack of lemmings.

As an illustration, look at this Google trends report on people searching for the word, "ukraine". The "crises" news cycle is apparently 6 weeks long.

[Frank Drackman]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Seems like I read that somewhere, apparently, President Alzheimer's hasn't.
"President Joe Biden on Monday briefly discussed new gun control options, including a potential ban on assault weapons. He said the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, "was never absolute."

Frank "Absolutely Not!"

[DaivdBehar]

Ironic. Washington killed thousands when the Brits raised taxes. Got rid of them. These were to fund the military to protect elitist lands from the Indians. Then, 500 armed people greet the tax collector to avoid paying the tax on whiskey. He collects 10000 militia and rides his high horse to crush them. Washington, not a lawyer.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

RE: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

What about when states no longer need militias for their security, and therefore the well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of the free state? As in, today?

And what about when private individuals who own guns are the principal danger to the security of the free state? As in, today?

[damikesc]

Under which logic do states not need militias? Feds are incapable of overstepping their bounds?

The government needs to be scared of its people.

And do away with gun-free zones and mass shootings cease to exist.

[Krychek_2]

The problem with your position is that tyranny is largely in the eye of the beholder; not everyone agrees with you about what is tyranny.

It's not unimaginable, for example, that abortion rights activists might start shooting Supreme Court justices who vote to overrule Roe v. Wade. You have your definition of tyranny; they have theirs. Do not assume that once the shooting starts, your side will have the monopoly on it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Mmm. I enjoy getting rid of rights when they are "no longer needed"

Do we get rid of the 13th amendment next? There's no slavery, so it's clearly not needed.

[EscherEnigma]

You should know that the 13th Amendment didn't abolish slavery, and that there is still legal slavery in the United States today, as explicitly allowed for by the 13th Amendment. The middle-school version of history you were taught left out the nuance, particularly the ugly parts.

[Gandydancer]

The 2A doesn't say "As long as a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Learn to parse English so that you will be able to detect the difference.

If you think the revised version is the case, the answer to your first question is found in the section on Amendments.

And your last paragraph is non-sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

"What about when states no longer need militias for their security, and therefore the well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of the free state? As in, today?"

The 2nd amendment asserts that such a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. As a ratified part of the Constitution, this makes a well regulated militia being necessary something the government is constitutionally prohibited from treating as untrue, barring a constitutional amendment.

But even if that weren't the case, the necessity of a well regulated militia is only an explanation for the right being important, the right isn't conditioned on it, because the amendment goes on to dictate that it not be infringed.

There's no "if" or "so long as" in the amendment.

[Krychek_2]

But what if the people of a free state decide that school shooters are a far greater practical risk than either tyrannical government or invasion from Canada, and they decide that their right to collective self defense against school shooters includes banning assault weapons? Don't they have the right, as a society, to decide how best to defend themselves? Don't they have the right to decide for themselves which is the greater threat?

Because if the issue is the right to self defense, and it is granted that that includes "the security of a free state," then banning assault weapons could be just as much an act of collective self defense.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Don't they have the right, as a society, to decide how best to defend themselves? Don't they have the right to decide for themselves which is the greater threat?

Sure, it's called amending the U.S. Constitution.

Because if the issue is the right to self defense, and it is granted that that includes "the security of a free state," then banning assault weapons could be just as much an act of collective self defense.

Well, a complete moron might believe that...but that doesn't make it true.

[Gandydancer]

"Assault" (i.e., fully automatic- or burst-fire- weapons are already almost completely banned (with some exceptions for collectors that have never resulted in any violent crimes that I know of). Whether that violates the 2A is the only serious question.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And what about when private individuals who own guns are the principal danger to the security of the free state? As in, today?

And with that idiotic assertion you continue to prove that the first part of your pseudonym is a lie.

[Ed Grinberg]

[President Biden] said the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, "was never absolute."

Neither is the First Amendment! How about, as a reasonable "speech control" measure, we ban anyone spreading "hate" and "misinformation"?

[Gandydancer]

reasonable "reasonable speech control"

FIFY

[CJColucci]

Most of us, at least outside of Florida, are freer than we have ever been to say what we please. We are also more exposed to the natural consequences of saying what we please, which have rarely been pleasant.
Free speech has never been popular. And when someone says: "I admire X because X says what he/she thinks," this is almost always a lie. The speaker usually means: "I admire X because X says what I think."

[Toranth]

Soviets were free to say what they pleased, too. They also had to face the natural consequences of that - which is why that is a silly thing to say.

"Freedom of speech" is more than just preventing the government from preventing you from speaking.
It's an entire ideology about allowing people to say what they will without threatening or punishing them for the speech itself. That means tolerating differing ideas and ways, even if they are distasteful to you.
And since you're going to immediately jump to it, no, not every right is absolute. There are restrictions on free speech where they intersect with other rights.
But people that gin up Twitter mobs or try to get people fired for their ideas are acting against the idea of "freedom of speech", even if they are not violating the 1st Amendment or other law.

[Nelson]

"It's an entire ideology about allowing people to say what they will without threatening or punishing them for the speech itself."

No, it's not. It never has been and never should be. There are consequences for everything in life.

Wanting to be free of the consequenses of your actions is childish. Or a delusional sense of entitlement. No rational, responsible, grown adult thinks that's accountability is a bad thing.

Cancel culture is vile and that sort of overreaction, embraced by conservative and liberal fringe elements, should be called out. But the people wbo indulge in it are the ones who believe "freedom for me, but not for thee". As long as people believe that the "other side" (whichever "side" that is) deserves it, the problem will persist.

[Toranth]

You don't seem to have read the rest of what I posted.

If you choose to stop associating with someone because of what they've said, that does not violate the idea of free expression.
If you choose to organize a group to get someone fired for what they've said, that does violate the idea of free expression.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Or that it isn't appropriate, either, in many societies. But it is neither supportive of nor an example of free speech.
Also, it is a logical fallacy to claim that because someone does not support free speech under all circumstances, they cannot support it under any. It is quite rational for someone to support free expression in general but also then have some places they don't.

As I pointed out, the Soviet Union also had consequences for speech, but no one would claim their people had free speech. The whole "speech has consequences" argument ignores what is being argued in favor of a vapid generality.

[EscherEnigma]

"If you choose to stop associating with someone because of what they've said, that does not violate the idea of free expression.
If you choose to organize a group to get someone fired for what they've said, that does violate the idea of free expression."

Ah yes, it violates the "idea of free expression" if I (checks my notes) tell people that Joe is an asshole and that I'm not talking to him anymore, and agreeing that Joe is an asshole, they also stop talking to him.

Freedom of Speech has never, legally or ideologically, been at odds with Freedom of Association. And yes, that means that shunning, exclusion, being kicked out of the family, being kicked out of the law firm, and so-on, are all entirely in-line with Freedom of Speech, both legally and ideologically.

Or to put it another way... Freedom of Association is not at odds with Freedom of Speech. There's no honest reason to argue it is.

[Toranth]

"I think Joe is an asshole and I'm not associating with him" is not the same thing as "I think Joe is an asshole and you should stop associating with him too unless you are an asshole too".

Legally, fine. Ideologically, clearly inconsistent. Organized movements, even small ones, to proactively punish people for their speech are in violation of the idea of freedom of expression.
Go read some of the 2000+ years of philosophy on the idea. It's been pretty consistent since the classical Greeks.
And no where did I claim it was inherently "at odds" with freedom of association. It can be, in specific case, but that's because any two rights can come into conflict in specific cases. In general, though, it isn't.

[Greg J]

"Most of us, at least outside of Florida, are freer than we have ever been to say what we please."

Hmm. So, States creating laws about what public schools can an can't teach is your idea of a "free speech violation"?

I'm sure that, somewhere, there's a more stupid claim than that one. But I can't imagine what it is

[bernard11]

States creating laws about what public schools can an can't teach is your idea of a "free speech violation"?

With exceptions, yes. Let's just say that these restrictions call for very close scrutiny.

[Gandydancer]

People, not public schools, have free speech rights. What public schools have, as a gift from the state, is a captive juvenile audience and money extracted from the citizenry at the point of a gun. What they teach is naturally rightly subject to control by that citizenry.

[EscherEnigma]

People, not corporations, have free speech rights.

Do I need to finish the rest of this paraphrase?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

People, not corporations, have free speech rights.

Do I need to finish the rest of this paraphrase?

If you intend something other than the ignorance-based canard that SCOTUS declared that "corporations are persons" in Citizens United then, yes, you should finish that "thought". If that is what you were referring to then you should probably just go sit in a corner and be quiet.

[Gandydancer]

If you want to communicate anything relevant here, yes.

[Ben_]

States probably don’t continue to pay translators who just say whatever instead of attempting to translate correctly.

Why can’t translators just say whatever? Why can court reporters just write what they please? Why can’t math teachers just sing pop songs every day instead of teaching math?

CJC up there would tell you it’s because all these states hate free speech.

[Longtobefree]

"I'm sure that, somewhere, there's a more stupid claim than that one. But I can't imagine what it is"

If you like your doctor, you can keep him?
If you like your health plan, you can keep it?
Biden is a unifier?

[Nelson]

"Hmm. So, States creating laws about what public schools can an can't teach is your idea of a "free speech violation"?"

No, states creating laws that retrict what you can acknowledge as a real thing in the real world isn't "what public schools can and can't teach". It's denying reality.

The Don't Say Gay law doesn't address curricum content. Saying it does is dishonest. It prevents mentioning objectively true things for purely partisan political reasons. Do you really think that K-3 students don't know that gay people are real? That some of their classmantes have two dads or two moms? That transgender people don't exist? Kids aren't as stupid as Ron DeSantis believes and aren't as fragile or ignorant as conservatives pretend.

Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that a state government limiting the speech rights of teachers is completely legal. As awful as the law is, it isn't outside the legal authority of the legislature.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Two men can't produce children so a child can't have two dads. Neither can two women.

HTH

[Gandydancer]

No one has two fathers or two mothers. If you think you do you are misinformed about biological reality. Preventing you from advancimg your political agenda by teaching otherwise is the opposite of denying reality -- it's preventing YOU from teaching falsehoods.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In what academic, legal, or professional setting outside of FL are you free to say there are only two genders, that biologically intact natural families produce superior children, and COVID was a bioweapon funded by the people in the US government, covered up by the people in the US government and exploited by the people in the US government to enrichen themselves and take more power over us? In what academic, legal, or professional setting outside of FL outside of FL are you free to say the MNRA therapeutics are a science experiment gone wrong and it's harming out population?

[Nelson]

You can say all of those things. And people hearing you say those things can realize you are delusional.

To be fair, most people don't understand enough about the methodological manipulations that the studies on "intact natural families" (by which I assume you mean heterosexual) perpetrated to arrive at their faulty conclusions, so that is more believing things you want to believe than actual delusion.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think children have better outcomes from broken families and the scientists are covering it up?

[Ben_]

I'm pretty sure he doesn’t care about any outcomes for any children. Good or bad, those outcomes don’t change his social or economic status. Going against the orthodoxy might though. Sorry kids.

[DaveM]

How is it a "lie" to admire someone who freely says what you believe to be correct? That doesn't even make sense. Is your argument that we ought to suppress those who are saying things we believe to be correct?

Freedom is a self-evident good. The value of free speech is not contingent on the quality of the speech.

[Ed Grinberg]

We are also more exposed to the natural consequences of saying what we please, which have rarely been pleasant.

When Antifa goons disrupt a speaking event (and the college / government authorities let them) -- natural consequences!
When someone from the White House tells a social media company to censor someone (and they do it) -- natural consequences!
We're living in a free speech utopia!

[Roger S]

"Both conservatives and progressives believe their opponents are out to silence them"

Really? Do progressives complain that conservatives are silencing them? Oh yes, I forgot about the progressive schoolteachers who want to groom kindergartners with LGBTQ propaganda.

[Greg J]

"Both conservatives and progressives believe their opponents are out to silence them"

"Progressives" are upset that those public bodies with the legal power to regulate the public schools, are blocking left wing indoctrinators from pushing their personal agendas on the Public's dime.

"Conservatives" are upset that Democrat politicians are working with tech billionaires to silence anyone who says anything the Left doesn't like, anywhere.

It might just be that there's a slight difference between those two positions.

Just maybe

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re ignoring DeSantis’ jihad against Disney. And ignoring the threats from Republican congresspersons that if they take the House they intend to call the CEOs of “woke” companies to hearings to explain themselves. Clearly an intent to punish them for their speech. And every bit as bad as woke cancel mobs and Biden’s aborted Truth Ministry.

[damikesc]

"You’re ignoring DeSantis’ jihad against Disney"

...by treating them equally to all other companies?

"And ignoring the threats from Republican congresspersons that if they take the House they intend to call the CEOs of “woke” companies to hearings to explain themselves. Clearly an intent to punish them for their speech. And every bit as bad as woke cancel mobs and Biden’s aborted Truth Ministry."

Wish Congress would not do that. Do wish shareholders would sue woke CEO's into oblivion.

And I love that they are "as bad" as the DHS trying to actively censor and the outright firing of anybody who does not believe that men really can become women.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Florida cut a deal with Disney in the 60s. Since then both parties have honored the deal. DeSantis is unilaterally yanking the agreement because he’s pissed about Disney’s political opinion. “Treating them equally to all other companies” would be honoring commitments to Disney, like they do to all other companies.

And calling virtue signaling CEOs before Congress is an attempt to intimidate them in to silence, just like woke mobs do.

Suppression of speech is suppression of speech, even when it’s your team doing it.

[Roger S]

Disney broke the deal when it started pushing for LGBTQ grooming of kindergartners.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Really?……No, not really.

[Nelson]

"Disney broke the deal when it started pushing for LGBTQ grooming of kindergartners."

Jesus, stop with oth the "grooming" nonsense. Teachers aren't grooming kids, sociopath.

And speaking out against the Don't Say Gay bill isn't "breaking the deal".

[Gandydancer]

Calling homos "gay" is propaganda and I have no objection to the government prohibiting that in the schools, but the bill doesn't do that.

What is this corrupt "deal" that Disney is supposedly losing out on?

[Greg J]

Jesus, stop with oth the "grooming" nonsense. Teachers aren't grooming kids, sociopath.

As they indeed ARE sexually grooming kids, and getting caught at it, I must take it that when you say "sociopath", you're talking abotu yourself, and the other grooming supporters.

And speaking out against the Don't Say Gay bill isn't "breaking the deal".
I's the "don't talk about sex with kindergartners" law, and everyone who opposed it showed themselves to be monsters.

Like Disney management

[ah....Clem]

"Suppression of speech is suppression of speech, even when it’s your team doing it."

Exactly.

[Greg J]

Florida cut a deal with Disney in the 60s. Since then both parties have honored the deal. DeSantis is unilaterally yanking the agreement

Well, either you're claiming that no State can EVER change anything, or you're walking around with your head up your backside.

Disney, a large corporation benefiting from a nice government gift, decided they were going to attack the politicians allowing them to keep that gift.

And did so so they could push the sexual grooming of K-3 students.

So now, they can either make up with the politicians, or they can lose their special deal.

If you're trying to claim that Democrats don't do the same or worse, I'll laugh in your face.

If you're whining that it's no fair that the GOP is starting to do to you what you've been doing to the rest of us for decades, then I'll really laugh in your face.

As I pointed out in another comment, Arlene's Flowers and Masterpiece Cakeshop have had their free speech trampled far worse than anything being done to Disney, and you all celebrate that

[Nelson]

"...by treating them equally to all other companies?"

There were 1844 special districts in Florida. The law as written impacted only 6. Do you claim that it wasn't designed to be political retribution by Ron DeSantis? If so explain why the law was tailored to leave 1838 special districts untouched, if this was indeed a principled stance.

The idea that people on a libertarian website are cheering and defending the government acting directly against a company for their speech is mindboggling to me. Weaponizing government to punish political opponents is about as anti-libertarian as it gets.

"firing of anybody who does not believe that men really can become women."

I don't know if this has actually happened or if it is another paleo fever dream.

I do know that if I had an employee who was angry and cruel enough to bring their personal problems with transsexuals into work with them, never mind actually refusing the basic courtesy of addressing someone as they ask, they would be gone. I don't care what you believe, but the second you can no longer act professionally you are a liability, not an asset, to my company.

[Roger S]

More like: Remove a govt-granted privilege to a company that was no longer acting responsibly.

[Gandydancer]

"...never mind actually refusing the basic courtesy of addressing someone as they ask...."

This is not a "basic courtesy". I won't bother repeating Jordan Peterson on this as I'm sure it would be a waste of keystrokes when applied to communication with the likes of you.

Fire whoever you want, assuming it doesn't violate agreed arrangements and expectations. But then don't whine about "public accommodations" when it's your ox being gored.

[Greg J]

There were 1844 special districts in Florida. The law as written impacted only 6. Do you claim that it wasn't designed to be political retribution by Ron DeSantis? If so explain why the law was tailored to leave 1838 special districts untouched, if this was indeed a principled stance.

Because, you pathetically ignorant moron, the 6 affected were the only 6 created under rules different from the other 1838

So those 6 lose their deals, and have to get new deals.

Now, Disney may have a hard time getting their sweetheart deal renewed if they're continuing to campaign for "strangers having sex talk with kindergartners", but we'll care abotu your whining about that when you stop attacking people for "misgendering", and stop supporting anyone doing such attacking.

[SimonP]

Texas has taken to punishing companies for taking climate change into account when making perfectly ordinary statements to their business. Efforts to control LGBT discussions in elementary public schools are quickly metastasizing to encompass private schools, higher education, libraries and bookstores. There really isn’t any end to the ways that Republicans are finding ways to use state power to limit liberty in service of their culture wars.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Were you all for the gone but not lamented Ministry of Truth? If so, you might consider the plank in your own eye….

[Greg J]

Efforts to control LGBT discussions in elementary public schools are quickly metastasizing to encompass private schools, higher education, libraries and bookstores

Which libraries do I go to to get a copy of "When Harry Became Sally"?

How many left-wing controlled libraries have booted Huck Finn, or To Kill a Mockingbird?

What's that? it's ok when left wing "librarians" do it, it's just wrong when the people paying the bills do it?

GFY

[DaivdBehar]

Zero tolerance for woke. These CEO's should be investigated and sent to prison.

[Greg J]

You’re ignoring DeSantis’ jihad against Disney

I refer you to Masterpiece Cakeshop, that no long does wedding cakes because of the unrestricted assaults of the State of CO

I refer you to Arlene's Flowers, which was destroyed by the State of WA, with the connivance of SCOTUS, for saying that they wouldn't do flowers for a same sex ceremony

So:
1: Let me know when Disney no longer exists, like Arlene's Flowers
2: Calling it the "don't say gay bill" was a flat out lie. Doing harm to a company that is lying in the political arena? I like that
3: So far his "jihad" has consisted of signing a law saying that Disney has to get the same deal as everyone else.
Can I have that "jihad" on me in social media, please?

[Greg J]

And ignoring the threats from Republican congresspersons that if they take the House they intend to call the CEOs of “woke” companies to hearings to explain themselves. Clearly an intent to punish them for their speech

How many times has an employee or company been canceled for their speech? Disney fired Gina Carano for her speech. Rosanna Barr was destroyed for her speech

So, even if your claim was true, it would be utterly irrelevant, because you all are desperate to destroy people for their speech. You know, like arresting school kids for "misgendering"

You have ZERO grounds for legitimate complaint about someone following your exact behavior, just aiming it at you.

And Democrat members of Congress routinely pull in and grill people whose speech they don't like

[bernard11]

I think I see the problem.

[Nelson]

If you use the word "groom" regularly and indiscriminately, you aren't an honest person to begin with. If you use it to describe teachers, you are a terrible person who believes untrue things or a fringe partisan who is actively trying to divide people. Either way, you should be shunned by decent society.

No one should prevent you from saying those things, but people are completely justified in judging you for them.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The grooming thing is political idiocy. I think that we should limit sexual content to younger ages, but there’s no “grooming” happening. If it’s anything it’s indoctrination.

You can’t say that putting age limits on sexual exposure at school is censorship unless you also think that, say, age limits to enter pornographic theaters is censorship.

[Roger S]

When Florida passes an anti-school-grooming law, it is fair to call the teachers and Disney activists groomers, if they oppose the law.

[Gandydancer]

Are you serious? If Congress passes an "Assault weapons ban" is it then "fair" to call AR-15s "assault weapons"?

No, it's still a lie.

[Greg J]

"If you use the word "groom" regularly and indiscriminately, you aren't an honest person to begin with. If you use it to describe teachers, you are a terrible person who believes untrue things or a fringe partisan "

Really? You're trying to claim there's not a single teacher who sexually grooms students?

That's an amazingly stupid claim, disproved by LibsOfTikTok pretty much every week.

Florida's Parental Rights in Education law blocks public school teachers from discussing sex with K - 3 graders.

And people are completely justified in (negatively) judging anyone who has a problem with that

[EscherEnigma]

If what you're saying wouldn't have been out of place in an Anita Bryant rant, you should probably realize you're just spouting anti-gay propaganda.

[Greg J]

"Has America Given Up on Free Speech?"

No, the American Left has "given up on free speech", but only because they never believed in it in the first place.

When the laws woudl go against them, they were "in favor of free speech." Now that they have the social power to censor, they're entirely opposed to free speech.

But that's because they're unamerican scum. Not because actual Americans have changed their minds

[Union of Concerned Socks]

we are less and less likely to give our opponents the benefit of the doubt and let them have their say

You can keep your "we" to yourself, fuckface. This is about individual rights, and any imagined collective can fuck off.

I expect government to protect my individual rights, just as I will defend your individual right to continue writing this tripe.

[Union of Concerned Socks]

P.S. Sorry about the language; use of the collective "we" when it comes to individual rights gets me exercised.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Both sides want the ideas of the other side suppressed using government coercion, so yeah our political and media so called elite have dumped free speech as a principle.

Out here among the normals we’re still big fans of it.

[SimonP]

Mark, at first I wasn't inclined to read your review, since you said virtually nothing here to give me any sense of what I might find there, other than a review of a book you didn't particularly find compelling. But you did offer this:

In a review of Jacob Mchangama's new book, Free Speech, at the Law & Liberty site today, I argue that this social trust has frayed greatly, and that Americans' problems with free speech result more from social breakdown than from a failed commitment to abstract ideas about expression.

Curious, I went to look for this "argument." Yet none was made. You simply asserted... this very same thing. What a pointless waste of time that was.

The "social breakdown" you're referring to might be ascribed to the loss of a common set of agreed facts, sometimes bemoaned by modern media critics. According to this account, part of the reason why "left" and "right" have so much difficulty tolerating one another is that we exist in increasingly separate media environments, with no single arbiter (or collectively central set of arbiters) framing the terms of debate.

And one can trace that breakdown to, perhaps, really the proliferation of "free speech," as news sources have moved away from a few broadcast networks and newspapers/magazines of record to a multiplicity of cable channels, websites, and a fragmented and weak print media. Throw social media into the mix, and you have even more of a hyper-focused effort to channel us to only those news sources that confirm our priors, repeatedly and indefinitely, ad nauseam.

I don't know what we can do about that. Certainly the valiant efforts of a few to curate their media consumption to counter all the ways they are being hived off is commendable, but it's hardly a model for broader success. I am not sure what you would suggest - as noted, no promised "argument" was actually made - but I might not be too far off the mark in supposing that it might have something to do with "the church" and a return to "traditional" family values. Which, you know, might be fine and defensible, but any argument to that effect would need to deal with the reasons why such binding agents have weakened in the first place.

[DaveM]

"And one can trace that breakdown to, perhaps, really the proliferation of 'free speech,' as [organizations] ... channel us to only those news sources that confirm our priors, repeatedly and indefinitely, ad nauseam."

There may be an explosion of news sources and commentary, but that hasn't automatically resulted in us having speech that is more free. The locus of control has merely moved from the editorial committee backroom to the tech company algorithm backroom.

[Gandydancer]

Not interested in going back to a time when all the channels available to me were under the control of people I despised.

[ah....Clem]

Everybody is in favor if free speech - for opinions that they agree with. For instance, the social media site ProAmericaOnly promises “No Censorship | No Shadow Bans | No BS | NO LIBERALS.”

Of course, it's their 1A right to run their site as they see fit; the 1A includes the right to be un-self-reflective and a parody of oneself.

Of course, the right does not have a monopoly on the "free speech for me, but not for thee" approach to the 1A. But I am continuously astounded by "libertarians" who are quite eager to have the government pass laws that curtail the free speech rights of outfits like ProAmericaOnly.

Oh, and the right to free speech does not include the right to not have your ideas criticized, or for you to be criticized yourself for saying it, despite what earnest contributors to the NYT op-ed page may want you to believe.

[ah....Clem]

Also, you have the right to say or write whatever you want*, but the world does not owe you a soapbox i.e. you have the right to speak but everyone else has the right to ignore you. Or to tell you that you're wrong.

*Subject to the the very narrow limits of speech that is unprotected by the 1A, a subset that fortunately has become smaller with time)

[Gandydancer]

You do have a right to use any soapbox you possess. In the public square, not deep in the woods. You don't have a right to an audience. Your formulation obscures this.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“No censorship….NO LIBERALS”.

LOL. The total absence of self awareness is astounding.

[ah....Clem]

Well, it's not stated explicitly in the constitution, but I think one can find the right to absence of self awareness in the penumbras of the first amendment. And I think one can ever argue that this right is "deeply rooted in this nation's history."

That said, we both have a 1A right to mock them mercilessly for their lack of self awareness.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Freedom of speech is eroding and seeing limits because people (one side especially) exploits every opportunity to engage in malicious speech which undermines every forum attempting to allow freedom speech. For instance, in the 1990s, the right-to-life movement used freedom of speech to post "divided threats": one member would post that, as a general principle, anyone who [does X] ought to be stopped by violent means if necessary, and another member would post, "independently", that "Dr. [Y]" does [X] every day. The inference - a call to murder Dr. [Y] - was never explicitly spoken or written, but inferred. The result was a pattern of violence. So new limits on freedom of speech had to be imposed.

[ah....Clem]

While you may think that "freedom of speech is eroding..." the broader historical context shows that it's stronger today than in the not-so-distant past.

While the 1A was adopted in 1787, it wasn't until 1931 that the Supreme Court invalidated a law based on 1A grounds in Stromberg v California (https://www.citizensource.com/Judiciary/Opinions/Stromberg.htm)

In broad historical terms, free speech protection is fairly new - my parents were alive when this case was decided. As children, they lived in a country that paid lip service to free speech but did not enforce it as a constitutional right. Let that sink in for a moment.

Yes, in the intervening 90 years or so free speech protections have been greatly expanded:

Lovell v. Griffin – (1938)
Thornhill v. Alabama – (1940)
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette - (1943)
Thomas v. Collins – (1945)
Kovacs v. Cooper – (1949
Torcaso v. Watkins – (1961)
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
Brandenberg v. Ohio – (1969) .
The New York Times Co. v. United States – (1971)
Bigelow v. Virginia – (1975)
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. – (1976)
Wooley v. Maynard – (1977)
Central Hudson Gas and Electric v. Public Service Commission – (1980)
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corporation – (1983)
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell – (1988)
Edwards v. Aguillard – (1987)
Texas v. Johnson – (1989)
Bartnicki v. Vopper – (2001)

It's an impressive winning streak (with a few losses that I've omitted).

What's striking is how recent these decisions are in the broader historical context. And when a majority of the court appears to sign on to an opinion that states that any alleged "constitutional right" must be "deeply rooted in this nation's history", it should scare the bejesus out of us. Every single one of these decisions expanding free speech could easily be overturned by the "deeply rooted" test.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes so far the SC has been very careful with limiting themselves to a handful of very targeted exceptions to 1A. If only our elected betters took it so seriously.

[DaveM]

Whoa, there were pro-lifers calling for the murder of "Dr. [Y]"? I don't recall seeing that. Do you have any citations for that claim? Oh, never mind, I see your admission that the call to murder was "never explicitly spoken or written", so there is no evidence. Nevertheless, new limits on freedom "had to be imposed" because you read between their lines.

Not a very convincing argument.

[Gandydancer]

"The inference - a call to murder Dr. [Y] - was never explicitly spoken or written, but inferred. The result was a pattern of violence."

This claimed cause-and-effect is fantasy.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Oops - not "exploits"; "exploit". I need a proof-reader.

[Gandydancer]

Reason needs better software. And less-obnoxious banner ads.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It is a striking feature of American life in the first quarter of the 21st century that we have somehow created a culture in which everyone feels aggrieved.

A very simple reason: the more of daily life is constrained by monolithic government, the more people lash out in frustration. It literally becomes more profitable, emotionally and financially, to push the government to mind other people's business before those people push government to mind your business.

Or another way to think about it: When government constraints are few and far between, it's easy enough to get on with your life and put up with the few inconveniences. But the more government constraints there are, the harder it is to find a lifestyle which isn't disrupted and constrained by government, and the more frustrated we get.

[ah....Clem]

It is fascinating to hear someone's view of the world that is the exact opposite of one's own. That's the great thing about freedom of expression.

From TFA:

[the author] believes, however, that new communications technologies, which allow for chokeholds on the spread of information that past tyrants could only dream of, make this a particularly dangerous moment. “Twitter and YouTube . . . removed record levels of content in 2019 and 2020,” he notes. “No government in history has ever been able to exert such extensive control over what is being said, read, and shared by so many people across the world and in real time.”

I read this and wonder what color the sky is on his planet. Modern communications technologies hardly exhibit a "chokehold" on the spread of information. Usenet, 4chan, 8chan, hundreds of thousands of web fora including this one allows anyone to say anything and potentially reach a worldwide audience. It is the exact opposite of a "chokehold". Granted, facebook is the 400 pound gorilla, but twitter remains the 15th or 16th most popular social media site.

The reality is that the successful social media sites have grown their audience by curation, i.e. controlling the user-generated material to produce a product that is successful. Some people insist that they have the right to take advantage of that audience by instituting must-carry laws, but no one has the right to make, say, snapchat carry their crap anymore than I have the right to make Fox News broadcast my crap.

Seriously, we are living in the golden age of free speech and global communication. Facebook, Twitter, et. al. can't silence anyone; there are hundreds of thousands of ways around anything they do. The Chinese government OTOH *can* effectively stifle speech. Which is why laws like the recent ones from Florida and Texas are so problematic.

[SimonP]

I have to wonder if the amount of content he’s talking about being removed includes a lot of… terroristic violence, content promoting genocide, porn, etc. These services have to remove a lot of truly traumatizing shit just to function. A few deplatforming decisions for people actively using the platforms to engage in overthrowing the government is small potatoes.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, like the Biden laptop stories and the Covid lab leak stuff. Probably saved a bazillion lives.

[ah....Clem]

Did anyone prevent you from reading about these things? Thousands of websites carried these stories, often the same ones that promoted flat-earth theories, ivermectin as a treatment for covid, 5G paranoia, anti-vax propaganda, etc.

Just because you think a story is important doesn't mean the rest of us have to think it is. Both lab-leak and the laptop story were covered by all major media. Who gave it an appropriate amount of coverage.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t much care about the laptop - I mean, it seems obvious that young Hunter had been doing a gonzo market in peddling influence and nobody cares so why should I?

The lab story was definitely suppressed and was always and still is a viable possibility. The fact that it wasn’t completely suppressed doesn’t excuse the attempt to do so. Some people were kept from seeing it. And maybe next time they’ll do better. Hell, maybe they already have. How would we know?

[EscherEnigma]

The only way Facebook or Twitter stopped anyone from seeing those stories, is if those people solely used Facebook or Twitter go get news. That doesn't sound like Twitter/Facebook's fault. That's on the person who relies on them as a sole-source news provider, when they don't even purport to be news providers.

It's even more idiotic then Tucker Carlson's viewers expecting him to report news.

[M L]

Nonsense. Stories like this will get millions or billions of views on Facebook and Twitter. All of those individual accesses to information are blocked when they employ nuclear grade censorship like this. Politically disfavored results on such topics are also blocked by Google, making many people genuinely unable to access information even when they are looking for it specifically. Facebook and Twitter's blocking of the topics almost became a bigger story in itself, and for them to take such an incredibly strong and aggressive position on the truth or falsity of various claims 100% convinced millions of people that whatever Facebook and Twitter disagreed with must really be wrong and probably "Russian disinformation" (LOL) or whatever.

[Gandydancer]

"Who gave it an appropriate amount of coverage."

In Bizarro-world your concept of "appropriate" would bear some relation to reality. In the real world the NY Post was censored. How effective the censoring was is arguable. That it was "appropriate" is not.

[ah....Clem]

It's almost entirely spam and fake accounts (bots). A small sliver of violent/graphic content and the rest basically lost in the noise.

See https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/25/very-very-little-of-content-moderation-has-anything-to-do-with-politics/

Yeah, there are a few loud butt-hurt individuals who think they have the right to a soapbox provided at someone else's expense, and this is what most people hear about, but the spam bots just release the next version of their software that tries to get around the filters.

If only the sites would publicly disclose the inner working of their filters the spam-bot developers would be so much more successful.

[DaveM]

"Seriously, we are living in the golden age of free speech and global communication. Facebook, Twitter, et. al. can't silence anyone; there are hundreds of thousands of ways around anything they do."

What you're saying is there are hundreds of thousands of ways to get marginalized and censored out of the popular culture. I'd hardly call that a "golden age" of free speech. The control has shifted from the editorial back rooms to the algorithm-writers Slack channels, true, but the reins are still firmly in hand.

I'm not sure that much has changed. It's not necessarily any less free, but the control is certainly much more overt.

[Toranth]

Sorry, but the "Anyone can post online, therefore there is no Big Tech chokehold" is an argument that simply ignores reality.

For a user to access someone else's online content, they must a) know about it, and b) be able to reach it.
If Google does not list your website on their index, more than 90% of your English language audience will never know you exist.
If Google DNS decides to drop your site, then most people will not be able to reach your server even if they know your website's name and URL.
Trying to host yourself, should you be blacklisted by the top three companies (95% of the English market), is also prohibitive. To build the infrastructure to host content, safely, and survive DDOS attacks is neither cheap nor easy. A normal person wishing to publish personal content cannot afford the time, effort, or money to do so.

It's worse if you are trying to push a communications app. The power held by Apple and Google over their app stores means that if they choose not to list you, you might as well not exist - 99.9% of users will be unable to run your app, even if they wanted to.

The internet unfortunately supports centralization for many reasons - cost scaling, resource sharing, horizontal integration, network effects, etc - all of which act against small would-be competitors. Which means that a small number of companies have vastly oversized abilities to influence the flow of information.

[ah....Clem]

The issue here appears to be

1) Google and Apply having a de-facto monopoly on phone apps (although at least with Android you can get the app from somewhere other than Google Play)

2) Google being the dominant search engine to the point of it being a near monopoly. But there are other search engines, and they are becoming more popular.

This is in the realm of anti-trust, and I've got no issues with going after either company for anti-competitive practices. But that's basically orthogonal to the usual complaints about facebook and twitter.

[Toranth]

Those are the first two, and have the most obvious impact.

The problems with hosting and DNS are more subtle, but even more serious. Reason, for example, is hosted in the Google Cloud. If Google decides to make Reason go away, that's it. Washingtonpost.com is hosted by AWS - and at Amazon's mercy.
Facebook is one of the biggest hosting services, along with Google and Amazon, and part of the Big Tech control that many people (including me) find threatening. Get blacklisted by those three, and you're down for in the English market.
DDOS mitigation and CDS service companies like CloudFlare are required (if not built in to your host). Without them, having a public website - especially a popular or controversial one - is hopeless.

How to deal with the concerns is an entirely different issue, and many of those screaming about "censorship" have only bad 'solutions'. I don't know what the best solution would be, or even a 'good' one. Maybe anti-trust is it. Maybe utility status, common carrier, or any number of other things would work - I do not know. But I do know that Big Tech's situation and behavior is a problem, and we'll need to do something about it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It allows us to engage our fellow citizens without expecting the worst of them, without thinking they are out to get us--in short, without personalizing debate in a way that makes everyone defensive and angry.

That does not view what is happening the way it appears to me. To me, the issue is movement conservatism, and its striking lack of a politics of its own.

Do you want to know what politics movement conservatives will favor next? They have no idea. They cannot tell you. They will wait to see what the left proposes, and make opposition to that their next affirmative aim.

Movement conservatives support overturn of whatever they imagine so-called liberals; communists; socialists; progressives want. It does not matter what. Policies which conservatives invented become anathema once liberals agree. Policies which served the nation with no controversy, and near-universal approval, become tainted, after something similar gets supported by the left.

Thus Covid vaccination must fail, because leftists favor it. The next step? Renewed and broadened resistance among movement conservatives to all vaccinations, including measles and polio. It is a pattern of political conduct, but it is not purposeful politics.

Structurally, all the debate initiative comes from the left; the right supplies pure, pre-programmed negativity. The aim of movement conservatism is failure for the left; the scope remains unbounded.

Structural political support for anti-majoritarian politics underlies movement conservative success. Thus, own-the-libs works today. It wants to recruit more votes tomorrow. It has nothing to propose, except denial. Anti-left denial has become an organizing political principle. It raises money. It determines right-wing primary outcomes.

Is the left anti-racist? The left is tyrannical, and must fail. That means tyrannical leftist support for anti-racism must imply anti-tyrannical virtue on the right. Thus, a startling resurgence of pro-racist advocacy. If the left wants it, the right wants whatever the left hates. That is all the politics the nation has left.

Movement conservatism has set up a structure for debate which admits no compromise, because debate never reaches the discussion stage. Not even trial of a presidential impeachment can proceed that far.

I urge those who think I am mistaken to follow closely, to see what happens to gun control proposals in the Senate during the next two weeks. I take it as a given that the left, desperate for compromise, will propose nothing with any prospect whatever to control gun violence before it happens. All such substantive measures will be pre-bypassed no-shows, with just-for-show measures offered instead. The left's sole political ambition in the gun debate will be to create a bogus public impression—that movement conservatism has not once again triumphed.

For purely political reasons, movement conservatives will find that intolerable. They will not merely oppose compromise. They will oppose even a flimsy appearance of compromise. Nothing political suits movement conservatives except gaudily evident anti-leftism. It is all the politics they have.

Expect movement conservatives to vote down the left's pathetic, empty, pointless, makes-no-difference compromise on gun control. Because movement conservative politics entertains no goal save one—to own the libs.

If, "our fellow citizens," simply refuse to engage, if they have no substantive politics of their own to offer, futility of continued attempts at engagement becomes evident. The verdict must be that movement conservatives intend an outcome where people become, "defensive and angry."

Why would anyone want that? What could account for such conduct? A political process so corrupted that it rewards with office the candidates most proficient to retail defensiveness and anger could account for it. It happens because for the present there is political power to be got from it, and a surplus of candidates unscrupulous enough to want political power for its own sake, without a thought for national outcomes.

[Ben_]

"I take it as a given that the left, desperate for compromise, will propose nothing with any prospect whatever to control gun violence before it happens."

Because that’s a fantasy without a constitutional amendment and 50+ years of gun confiscation fights.

But it would be interesting to hear what you or anyone thinks (remember the word is "thinks", not "feels" or "wishes", so include reasoning in your answer) would substantially avoid gun violence. How will it work in Chicago?

"The left's sole political ambition in the gun debate will be to create a bogus public impression…"

Yeah. Bogus public impressions are 90% of everything they do. They play to the blue-checks on Twitter almost exclusively.

"Expect movement conservatives to vote down [whatever]…. Why would anyone want that?"

Because not being bullied by government jerks is better than being bullied by government jerks. If you want to understand opposition for opposition's sake, that’s the thing to understand. Do you want to understand?

Why would an American trust any government official in any way, on any topic? Seriously, why?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Leftists worship the people in government as their God.

[Ed Grinberg]

"The Reverend" explains this regularly. They (the people in government or, like him apparently, in the "mainstream" media) are "your betters." If you evince anything other than gratitude and admiration for their efforts, you're deplorable scum, deserving of most severe censure and "natural consequences" (see above).

[DaveM]

This is a very striking opinion. I would ask only one question:

Do you think any of your policy prescriptions might turn out to be bad ideas?

If you answer "yes", then by your own admission those who oppose you may have perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so. If you answer "no", then you are claiming to be perfect.

What you have done is started with the conclusion you wanted -- that your opponents "have no substantive politics of their own to offer -- and then rationalized yourself backwards to find the evidence which fits. The real truth is that there are principled differences of opinion. You're just not listening to them.

[Ben_]

I think they give themselves a pass on anything that fails because everything always turns out ok for bureaucrats and lawyers. Bad policy hurts others. And then those others are in need … of more policy.

Plus something didn’t go perfectly 50 or 300 years ago or something, so no one could have succeeded anyway until all historical wrongs are undone. And everyone who doesn’t go along with every policy is exactly like whomever did whatever back then.

[Gandydancer]

All that wall of text is clearly marked as a complete waste of time and brain cells to read when it includes utter nonsense like "...the left, desperate for compromise, will propose nothing with any prospect whatever to control gun violence before it happens."

Yes, movement conservatism is a nearly complete waste of time and space. But what it opposes is worse.

[Ed Grinberg]

Or consider the conflict over CRT in public schools. Conservatives argue that CRT indoctrinates impressionable schoolkids in a false version of American history, thereby threatening our social fabric and our democratic institutions. They want teachers to stop discussing it. By contrast, progressives say that conservatives want to suppress the truth and present a phony, sanitized version of American history that does real harm to minority communities and itself threatens democracy. Conservatives are the ones who need to be silenced. Compromise, in such a context, seems unlikely.

This one's actually pretty easy. Shut down public schools. Then the remaining (private) schools can teach whatever they want -- CRT, Americanism, what have you.
(Of course, "progressives" will never go for this compromise. The ability to indoctrinate "deplorables'" children is too important to them. If anything, they'd like to eliminate non-public education -- private schools, homeschooling -- and get rid of charter schools.)

[Ben_]

They need the union money from the government schools.

[M L]

The "social breakdown", fraying of social trust, conflict among families and communities over politics, etc is all closely related to the wholesale abandonment of America's founding ethos of tolerance and decentralized self-government.

[Cal Cetín]

"engage our fellow citizens without expecting the worst of them, without thinking they are out to get us--in short, without personalizing debate in a way that makes everyone defensive and angry."

Too late, if this comment section is any indication.

[Gandydancer]

Of the ones of whom I think that I cannot be argued out of thinking it because it's true.

[Tigger Johnson]

The author writes: "in today's polarized, distrustful America, we are less and less likely to give our opponents the benefit of the doubt and let them have their say even if the law permits it."

Who is this "we"? Not me. Speak for yourself.

Liberals once believed in Voltaire-style free speech, but liberals like that have vanished or have gotten with the anti-liberal progressives. Progressives, on (foul) principle, do not. The right is a mixed bag, but it is also the last redoubt of Voltaire-style free speech ethics.

Please leave the drawing of such false equivalences to aspiring deans and other smarmy types.

[DWB]

Liar

[damikesc]

Repeating a lie does not change it being a lie.

[damikesc]

Has not been led by the Right for decades now.

[DaivdBehar]

Queenie. Wait until 2025. See what happens to woke. Zero tolerance for this Chinese Commie interest in destroying our nation from within. When China attacks Taiwan, all collaborators should be rounded up, for treason.

[damikesc]

"Because I think people support this bad thing, it is justified for this bad thing to be done to them"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Employers should be able to fire someone for any reason they want. Even if that hurts your feelings.

[damikesc]

Jemele Hill was turfed because her ratings on SportsCenter were abysmal. The Right had nothing to do with it. She keeps getting jobs, mind you, in spite of her being the kiss of death to basically every media she is a part of.

[damikesc]

BlueAnon is not something to take pride in.

You can continue lying. Nobody expects more of you.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Iirc Truth Minister Fruitcake explicitly expressed her intent for her and her verified minions to edit people’s tweets. If you think there was any chance at all that the editing would have been limited to foreign accounts then you’re even more stupid than I think you are, which seems almost impossible.

More likely is you’re just hopelessly dishonest.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It was on a fucking video that was all over the internet. A huge story. Right out of her own mouth on a zoom call. So visible that Musk responded. Google “Nina editing tweets” and you’ll get 1000 hits.

You’re not really even trying.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Queenie. Woke is Chinese Commie interest in destroying our nation from within. No can do. Zero tolerance for woke. See what happens to woke in 2025.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Oh, AP. There’s a non-partisan source. I heard what she said with my own ears and I don’t need a progressive news organization to interpret it for me.

Just like I told the righties above, suppression of speech is suppression of speech even when your side does it. You and they are equal parts of the problem because when your side does it you cheer and deflect and defend. You only oppose suppression done by your perceived enemies.

You and they are both threats to my civil liberties, so kindly go fuck yourselves with a rusty softball bat.

[Nelson]

I don't always agree with Bevis, but he is 100% right.

If you support supression of speech when done to the people you hate and revile it when it is done to the people you like, you aren't advocating for feee speech.

You are the problem.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“It’s fine when the government regulates speech as long as it’s THEIR speech.”

Almost Truth Minister Whackadoodle has easily fit right back into her natural state of spreading misinformation, now about herself and her failed agency. But it’s fine really because she would have only shut down speech from the right.

Like I said, you don’t want the problem solved because YOU’RE the problem, every bit as much as those you detest.

[Gandydancer]

"And the AP as hyper-partisan? You’re going full OAN these days."

Yes, it it. And I didn't even know what OAN meant until I looked it up. But the "fact check" you linked to demonstrates that, and also that no one was "duped" to think that the would-be Minister of Truth was a threat to free speech. As with almost all "fact checks" the key trick is to obscure what is at issue by vigorously beating straw men instead of addressing it, and AP did that in defense of
Jankowicz, thus demonstrating the partisanship which is anyone with eyes to see. The honesty to admit it is even rarer, as you demonstrate. The threat Jankowicz posed is clear in her approval of the idea of "editing" to selectively add "context", i.e. argue against unapproved opinions. The main reasons she gave as to why she wouldn't volunteer to add such notes is that she wouldn't have the time and it ought to be paid work.

[Gandydancer]

You "recall" all sorts of irrelevant nonsense all the time. Wikipedia:

On October 9, 2017, ESPN suspended Hill for two weeks for a "second violation of our social media guidelines".[36] Hill suggested fans upset with Jerry Jones' threat to bench any player who does "anything that is disrespectful to the flag" should boycott the advertisers who support Jones and the Dallas Cowboys.[37] On January 25, 2018, ESPN announced that Hill would anchor her final SC6 on February 2, and begin a new role at The Undefeated, the company's website that covers the intersections of sports and race.[38]

"Boycott advertisers", indeed! The very woke ESPN didn't even have the stones to fire her ass for biting the hand that paid her salary, which she fully deserved.

[EscherEnigma]

... weren't you just complaining about people being fired for spouting off conspiracy theories and nonsense?

[Gandydancer]

Your "guesses" are as bad as your memory whwen yiou "recall things". The link is dishonesty in the form of substituting snark for actual response..

[Gandydancer]

But they didn't lower her visibility for calling Trump a white supremacist, though that is why her calling for a boycott of advertisers was called the "second violation of our social media guidelines" in the quote.

I wouldn't suggest that your pretending that up is down is "nice". Actually it's a nasty syndrome.

[Gandydancer]

The claim was that FL is especially hard on "free speech" because it prevents proselytizing lunacy in FL schools by reserving the whole subject for parental tutelage. BCD is correct to point out that all sorts of claims are prohibited from classrooms. Your response is not on point.

[Gandydancer]

He's right. You're a liar. "Groom” does not in fact mean "acknowledging [that] gay(sic) people exist".

[Greg J]

No, you lying sack of garbage, by campaigning against the Parent's Rights in Education law