The Ongoing Death of Free Speech: Prominent ACLU Lawyer Cheers Suppression of a New Book

Are you saying exposure isn’t a kind of experience?

Then say that.

Useless ad hominem tone policing non-argument duly noted.

Bullshit. It was in the same post where you bothered to reply (and bothered to add snark) to a different later point. You were never going to get back to it until called out.

Can you quote where in that link “non-racist views are redefined to be racist.” ? I see nothing there where anyone is calling Wang racist.

Not that I agree his views are non-racist, mind you.

Who tweeted it? And where in that tweet is an example where “non-racist views are redefined to be racist.”

You have a cite of someone making that claim?

I find it pretty depressing that usually thoughtful people are so willing to strap on the blinders on this issue. Just to take one point on the question of authenticity: there are people who have confirmed that at least some of the emails are authentic. No matter the provenance of the laptop, things like that should matter.

Anyway, I guess there’s no point discussing it further, because you’ve made up your mind. I’ll leave it at that.

What’s bullshit is you thinking you know what qualifies as “mildly questionable” to other people. If someone feels appreciably aggrieved by what you consider “mildly questionable”, do they not have the right to air their grievances? And don’t their platforms of choice also have their own rights to publish/not publish said grievance?

This is freedom of speech in action. It is not dying. Cancel culture is nothing more than a freedom of speech pushback directed at assholes for being assholes without consequences for far too long. Yes, assholes have every right to be assholes and they won’t go to jail. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t social prices to be paid for being one.

It’s actually been discussed to death, in threads more relevant to it. No blinders, took a look at all the information available, and found the claims to be bullshit.

I agreed that some of the emails were authentic, as I said, it appears as though his email was hacked.

However, as I also said, these emails were not provided to media outlets to investigate, only certain emails and usually only screenshots. Why do you think that the whole database of emails was not turned over to the media, but rather just ones picked out of context?

A bullshit claim made by someone with blinders on would be that someone who got a law degree from Yale, who had served on the board of directors of many companies, would only be able to get a job due to the influence of his father. A further bullshit claim that could only be made by someone who chooses only to look at information that confirms their beliefs would be that the entire US state department, as well as the governments of several EU countries, were in on this scheme.

That’s the view of someone who is willing to strap on blinders.

eh… not important.

Who cares if a few totally mundane emails, which said nothing significant or notable (much less incriminating), might not be made up? It’s irrelevant. No more significant than if someone put some legitimate, easy to obtain document in with the fake birth certificates for Obama.

This is internet nonsense. A big pile of nonsense. Maybe some smart guy mixed in something real (but nothing that actually means anything). But who cares? This is ass derived nonsense. Greenwald is a liar and a grifter, just like Tucker Carlson and the rest.

Show me a chain of custody with something incriminating and I’ll look at it. But nothing like that has been presented. Just a bunch of rumor and innuendo.


This thread has been moving pretty quickly, and I apologize for not being more present. But let’s dial it back and keep things civil.

Just a note, not a warning.

I also rely a lot on the BBC, and on Canada’s CBC, and Australia’s ABC, precisely because they still have a commitment to strong news values.

But those “balkanized news networks” that you (and I) avoid would not be affected at all by a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. The only way that the government was able to get away with the doctrine in the first place is that it applied only to broadcasters who leased the government-owned airwaves. It never applied to the print media, and it also didn’t (and wouldn’t) apply to cable news stations. In an age where fewer and fewer people get their news from the broadcast networks, a new Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t just be bad policy; it would have almost no discernible effect on the overall news landscape.

It would apply to radio. And that is where quite a bit of this radicalization begins.

I spent a few years driving for a living, between working for a utility and catering. My local AM radio station was excellent with traffic and weather reports, so I tended to tune it there. But in between those, utter inane right wing trash drivel. The hosts were bad enough, but the people who called in were not even the slightest bit shy to share their racism and hatred.

I don’t listen to them anymore, but I would be very surprised if they were not pushing the Hunter laptop story, along with every other conspiracy theory about those evil liberals. I don’t know what a fairness doctrine would do there, but it would apply.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that either.

Any resuscitation of the Fairness Doctrine would undoubtedly be immediately challenged in the federal courts on constitutional grounds regarding the first amendment and compelled speech. While the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine in 1969, the court also began to narrow it in the 1970s and early 1980s.

The current iteration of the court, with its solid conservative majority, would look with a pretty dubious eye on government efforts to control content by requiring balance. I’d predict a 6-3 vote to strike it down, and I’d also be willing to bet that part of the majority’s argument would be that the proliferation of news sources in the digital age makes a Fairness Doctrine not only unconstitutional, but unnecessary.

I’m personally no fan of the fairness doctrine, I was just pointing out that a significant space that begins the radicalization on the right is under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

As far as compelled speech, broadcasters are also required to have a news program as part of their FCC license. Would you consider that mandate to also be compelled speech? Or, I suppose more specifically, do you think that at least 5 of the current SCOTUSes would?

If that were held up, would you think that a fairness doctrine would hold up as part of that mandated news program.

Once again, as I said, I’m not a huge fan of it anyway, as I don’t really see how it would work to actually give balanced views.

Are they really?

Has the OP abandoned their own thread already?

I’m guessing without concern for the opposing positions or cites. Learning nothing, and waiting to bring up the same topic again down the road.

Probably mildly questionable was the wrong way to put it. There are certain ideas that have always (in my lifetime) been regarded as ‘beyond the pale’: not acceptable to support, not necessary to debate. Things like paedophilia and white supremacy. My perception is that the range of these ‘unacceptable’ ideas is expanding, and a lot of the ideas now regarded as ‘beyond the pale’ are just way less bad than paedophilia and white supremacy. But they are still seen as unacceptable to support, unnecessary to debate. Hence the analogy to shoplifting getting the same punishment as worse crimes made sense. It’s not just that the number of people who think these ideas are bad is increasing, it’s that I think most would still see a difference of degree between them. For example, a guy was fired from Google for writing a memo saying, among other things, that on average there are biological differences between men and women and this probably explains the sex imbalance in tech jobs. Do you consider that view to be equally bad and equally as wrong as white supremacy? Whether you do or not, do you think it should be treated the same way as ‘beyond the pale’?

It shouldn’t, it’s a poor analogy, since shoplifting used to get you killed or deported or enslaved.

“Difference of degree” is a red herring. There can still exist a difference of degree between, say, being a lynchin’ KKK member and thinking race is biological and some races have lower IQs. AND both can be unacceptable all the same. Saying you find scientific racism unacceptable is not the same as saying scientific racists want to kill Blacks (even though I’ll happily tease scientific racists about wearing hoods). “Unacceptable” =/= “As unacceptable as”

And anyway, “difference of degree” is in the eye of the beholder.
As, seemingly, is “beyond the pale”. You may think White supremacy is, but how many Americans think it’s just peachy?

Yes, I consider misogyny as bad as White supremacy. And yes, misogynistic views should be treated as beyond the pale…

I don’t consider that view misogynistic, and there’s a decent amount of evidence for it, too. I’m not down for lying about the world because some people don’t like the facts, and I prefer my policy reality-based. I don’t think there’s much left to debate here.

So your definition of evidence, facts, and reality includes pseudo-science and misogynistic lies.

You can’t even remember the guy’s name, but you’re completely certain that he didn’t say anything sexist, and that his views were backed up by valid science?

C’mon people, clearly there are biological differences between men and women and that probably explains the sex imbalance in tech jobs!