The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

The Decline of Free Speech in America

The following are a collection of the Chirps that I have written about a treatise by Jonathan Turley that examines the current state of Free Speech in America.

07/25/22 Free Speech in the United States

In the treatise by Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, he examines the state of Free Speech in today’s America. As this PDF has no table of contents, I have constructed one that can be utilized by my readers:

Never in American history have Americans been more polarized on the issue of free speech, and never has there been a decline of free speech in America as we have seen today. While this article is long, it is well worth the read by all Americans concerned about free speech in America.

This week’s Chirps will be dedicated to this treatise, with my own commentary on sections of this treatise.

________________________________________________________

^[1] Millian – a school of thought from English philosopher and economist, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), remembered for his interpretations of empiricism (the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience) and utilitarianism (the doctrine that the useful is the good; especially as elaborated by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill; the aim was said to be the greatest happiness for the greatest number).

07/26/22 Regulation of the “Marketplace of Ideas”

In the treatise by Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, he examines the Public And Private Regulation of the “Marketplace of Ideas”. While I am a free speech absolutist, almost, I do have some disagreement with Professor Turley’s conclusions. I believe in the widest interpretation of free speech possible, as does Professor Turley. However, there are some exceptions to free speech absolutism. These exceptions are speech that directly incites violence or criminal activity, speech that poses direct harm to the listeners (i.e., shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater), and speech that is intended to intimidate those involved in a judicial proceeding to influence the outcome of the judicial proceeding. It is this last point that I have some disagreements with Professor Turley’s conclusions.

The question about these exceptions is, when do they apply? What is a direct incitement of violence or criminal activity, and what speech causes direct harm? Who is to decide if this speech has occurred, and what actions may the government take under these circumstances? These are questions that have been around for millennia, and most particularly since the establishment of our Constitution.

My judicial exception applies to witnesses, defendants, prosecutors, litigants, arbitrators, and judges or justices. The judicial exception is important to have a civil and peaceful society, and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" requires a fair and impartial judicial system that imparts "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". Peaceful assemblies and protests about judicial matters and proceedings are acceptable, but vitriolic and threatening speech is not acceptable. To engage in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against those involved in judicial proceedings is an assault on the impartiality of judicial proceedings and does harm to the body politic, and should be roundly condemned by all parties but not necessarily restricted.

The additional issue of the judicial exception is are those protests that are for the purposes of influencing current judicial proceedings, or are the protests for the purposes of influencing future judicial proceedings, or both. Two articles, “Protesters Target the Dobbs Majority” by Richard A. Epstein and “Protests and “First Amendment Exceptionalism”: A Response to Professor Richard Epstein” by Jonathan Turley, examine this issue from two different perspectives. The harm to society from influencing current judicial proceedings is that the guilty may go unpunished, the innocent may be punished, the law may be unjustly applied, and laws, rules, and regulations that infringe upon our Natural and Constitutional Rights may be implemented nor may they be overturned.

There is also the tangential issue of privacy at your place of residence. What is the balance of your right to privacy and a peaceable abode for yourself and your family, and your neighbors and their family’s peaceable abode when protestors gather outside of your and their homes, versus the free speech rights of the protestors? There is also the tangential issue of privacy when conducting ourselves in the normal intercourse of life such as shopping, going to restaurants, being present at religious services, attending a sporting event or a concert, etc. What are your and the other non-protesting persons or a businessperson’s rights not to be adversely impacted by protesters at these places? It would be exceedingly difficult to legally define these circumstances that the free speech protestor's rights could be limited without infringing upon free speech. However, it is easy to be a free speech absolutist when your privacy rights are not being harmed, but much more difficult if your life or livelihood is being impacted by these tangential issues.

As a free speech absolutist, I am troubled by both perspectives and their implications for judicial exceptions and for the tangential issues on free speech rights. While I believe in the widest interpretation of free speech possible, I am also concerned about the negative consequences to society of judicial intimidation and the harm to the tangential issues to privacy rights. The balance between free speech and the possible harm to fair and impartial judicial proceedings and the tangential issues is difficult to resolve. In this resolution, you must also keep in mind that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", as to allow judicial intimidation is to allow for the dissolution of our society.

There is no perfect solution to this problem. However, with the protests about the Supreme Court abortion ruling, and the earlier and subsequent protests it has engendered, it is time to bring more resolution to this issue. And resolve it we must, as:

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."
 - Abraham Lincoln

07/27/22 Virtual Marketplace Free Speech

In a treatise by Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, one of the topics he examines is ‘Protecting The Virtual Marketplace’ for the purposes of Free Speech. Over the last few years, we have seen the deleterious effects of "Social Media" constrictions on Free Speech, as I have pointed out in my Article, "Social Media and Free Speech". The canceling of social media accounts, the labeling of content as misinformation or disinformation, and the ‘fact checking’ of posts have changed the course of America by restricting contrary or dissenting thoughts or opinions. In two recent cases, these constrictions have been found to be improper and wrong, which led to significant changes in America. These two cases were of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

The COVID-19 Pandemic discussions of the origins of the virus, the ethics and dangers of biomedical research and drug development, and the dissenting opinions on the proper approach to combating the virus were not freely discussed and were often constricted or suppressed by social media. This would have been a good time to freely discuss our interdependence with China, and a reexamination of our relationship with China was merited. Biomedical research and drug development and approval, Including the efficacy of the vaccinations, should also have been freely discussed for the American people to decide if they wished to undertake the risks of the inoculations. The governmental directives and restrictions to combat the pandemic have led to significant negative economic impacts upon America, and the costs and benefits of these governmental directives and restrictions were not freely debated before being implemented, nor during the continuation of these governmental directives and restrictions. Many of these governmental directives and restrictions also had a detrimental impact on the Liberty and Freedoms of Americans, and almost all dissenting opinions on these governmental directives and restrictions were constricted, and alternative approaches were not allowed or panned by social media companies. In these constrictions and suppressions, social media companies toed the government line and curtailed or excluded any free speech on these topics on their platforms.

The suppression of the discussions and of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop and the advancement of the reports that his laptop was ‘Russian Disinformation’ most likely and significantly impacted the 2020 Presidential election. If the contents of this laptop were known by the American electorate, it might have changed the outcome of the election. America would be significantly different than it is today if President Trump had won reelection, and the debacles of President Biden and his administration would never have occurred. This was an example of the social media companies utilizing their platforms to constrict information that was not advantageous, and indeed harmful, to their political proclivities. As such, they demonstrated that they would allow free speech for me and mine but constrict free speech for you and yours. This highlights the debates of if social media companies are to be considered as a Common carrier of content for any person or company or a Publishing company that exercises editorial control of the content. As a common carrier, they have no right to restrict free speech other than that which directly incites violence or criminal activity, speech that poses a direct harm to the listeners, or speech that is intended to intimidate those involved in a judicial proceeding to influence the outcome of the judicial proceeding, as I have Chirped on “07/26/22 Regulation of the “Marketplace of Ideas”.

However, these two cases are not the only cases of Social Media’s constrictions on Free Speech. They are only the two cases in which the problems of these constrictions of free speech on social media are clear and unambiguous. There are many other cases in which the issues of free speech constrictions in social media have had pernicious impacts on America. These two cases also demonstrate the significant impact that social media has on America. Consequently, we need to address free speech on these platforms to ensure that all Americans are informed with a diversity of thought and opinion. If not, then we run the risk that free speech on social media is passé, and social media companies can control the flow of information in America, and hence the future direction of America.

07/28/22 Physical Marketplace Free Speech

Free Speech in America is under serious assault in today’s society. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists seem to support Free speech for me and mine, but restricted speech for you and yours. At the same time, Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders seem to want free speech restrictions for what they perceive as immorality. All sides are hypocritical on the issues of free speech, but the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists side is fraught with danger to our society as they would restrict or suppress speech that is in opposition to their policy positions and political agendas. These restrictions of suppression would harm the body politic by not providing the American public with the information they need to make rational and reasonable decisions on public policy and laws, rules, and regulations in government.

While most Americans are rightly concerned about government restrictions on free speech, today, we need to be concerned about the non-governmental restriction on free speech. Free Speech is more than the Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment of our Constitution. To freely speak your mind in all arenas of life is crucial to our Liberties and Freedoms, for, without it, we all become prisoners of our minds as we are unable to express ourselves and our individual thoughts. As ‘Cato’s letters or Essays on Liberty” has stated:

“[w]ithout Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as wisdom; and no such thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt and Control the right of another.”

Non-governmental restrictions emanate from "Big Tech", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Mainstream Media", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education" in today’s society, as I have written in my Articles, "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression" and "Social Media and Free Speech". Free speech values are, therefore, neither synonymous with nor contained exclusively within the First Amendment. As Johnathan Turley examines in the below-mentioned treatise, all of these public and private forms of censorship undermine free speech values.

Never in American history have Americans been more polarized on the issue of free speech, and never has there been a decline of free speech in America as we have seen today. A treatise by Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, examines this decline and its impacts of the decline. Here are some excerpts:

“Throughout its history, the United States has struggled with movements that aim to silence others through state or private action. These periods have been pendulous, with acute suppression followed by relative tolerance for free speech. This boom–or-bust pattern for free speech may well continue. However, the United States is arguably living through one of its most serious anti-free speech periods, and there are signs that the current period could result in lasting damage for free speech due to a rising orthodoxy and intolerance on our campuses and in our public debate.”

“Where fighting for freedom of speech was once a near-universal rallying cry, opposing free speech has now become an article of faith for some in our society. This has led to a rising movement that justifies silencing opposing views, often on the grounds that stopping others from speaking is, in fact, an exercise in free speech. This movement has both public and private components, but it is different from any prior period due to new technological, political, and economic pressures on the exercise of free speech.”

“The harm from loss of free speech was viewed as existential for our democracy. Today, the focus of many writers and academics is on the harm of unregulated free speech. Recently, a leading cable host heralded censorship on the Internet as part of a new “harm reduction model” of both free speech and freedom of the press. Free speech is now treated as presumptively harmful absent governmental and corporate regulation. The harm is often ill-defined and applied inconsistently. The premise remains that unregulated free speech can threaten the democracy as a whole or it can threaten individual students who feel unsafe due to the expression of opposing views. Rather than treating free speech as the essential element for intellectual discourse, it is often portrayed as akin to a type of controlled substance in our public and academic discourse.”

While this treatise is longish, it is well worth the read by all Americans concerned about free speech in America.

07/29/22 Educational Space Free Speech

In a treatise by Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, one of the topics he examines is the decline of free speech in academic institutions and the impacts of this decline. As he has stated, “Academics were once united in free speech as a virtual article of faith. That has changed. What was once an atmosphere of pluralism and tolerance has become one of orthodoxy and retribution. Our failing as academics has created the dangerous vacuum that is enabling groups to silence those with opposing views.”

He has proposed ten principles to address this decline, but he has cautioned that “The ten proposed principles do not supplant the universities in determining when violations have occurred. They do not compel university verdicts or adjudications. Instead, they create an obligation to address and document such cases. They also do not intrude into academic freedom or judgment, even when schools have limited the ideological range of the faculty.”

These ten principles are from his Congressional testimony - The Right of the People Peaceably to Assemble: Protecting Speech by Stopping Anarchist Violence: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (Aug. 4, 2020). These ten principles are:

1. Guaranteeing that speakers appear on campus under the same costs and conditions, regardless of their views (or opposition to their views).
2. Committing to disciplinary action of students or faculty who block classes, lectures, or speeches by violent acts or threats of violence.
3. Committing to the expulsion or termination of students or faculty who physically assault speakers or others seeking to exercise free speech or the right to peaceful assembly.
4. Committing to disciplinary action of students or faculty who block classes, lectures, or speeches through disruptive conduct inside classrooms, halls or other spaces reserved for such presentations.
5. Enforcing a presumption that the exercise of free speech outside of the school (including statements on social media) for faculty or students is generally not a matter for school sanctions or termination.
6. Committing to due process of students and faculty who are disciplined for exercising free speech rights, including the right to discovery of patterns of bias or inconsistent treatment in other controversies.
7. Barring restrictive “free speech zones” and other exclusionary zones for free expression (other than rules barring demonstrations, disruptions, or exhibits in classrooms, halls, or other spaces used for lectures, presentations, and events).
8. Barring student governments or organizations from sanctioning or censuring fellow students for their exercise of free speech without a clear and narrowly tailored standard as well as the approval of a university body.
9. Barring faculty from sanctioning, censoring, or retaliating against students for their political, social, or religious statements or values (subject to protected exceptions for religious-based institutions).
10. Barring faculty from requiring that students adhere to, adopt, or endorse political, social, or religious positions as a condition for any class, program, or benefit (subject to protected exceptions for religious-based institutions).

Western civilization has recognized for millennia that diversity of thought and opinion is crucial for the advancement of humankind. From Liberty and Freedom to science and medicine, it has been the diversity of thought and opinion that has led to the betterment of humankind. From the time of the Ancient Greeks to today, it has been the dissident of orthodoxy that has led to this advancement. Much of this diversity of thought has been centered in academic institutions where both the teachers and students are free to challenge this orthodoxy and learn how to think and not what to think. Over the last several decades, this diversity of thought in academics has been severely constricted, and the dissident from orthodoxy has not been allowed to speak, or they have been silenced, restricted, or expelled from campuses.

One of the topics that he does not address in any detail is Free Speech in K-12 public schools. With the rise of social "Activists and Activism" in the teaching of K-12 students, as exhibited by the incorporation of Critical Race Theory and The 1619 Project in public K-12 education, we are venturing into educating these students on how to think and not what to think. This is being done for the purposes of molding the students rather than for the teaching of subject matter for the purposes of educating our children to become productive members of society. This is leading to parental discontent, and the public funding of controversial ideas in the classroom, which is abhorrent as:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors in sinful and tyrannical."
 - Thomas Jefferson

We, therefore, need to examine the limits of Free Speech by teachers in K-12 classrooms.

This trend has been deleterious to the advancement of humankind, and if allowed to continue, it will lead to poor and improper social policy and to a regression of Liberty and Freedom. It is time to stop this trend and to right the course of academic freedom in America. The ten principles exposited above are a good start and should be codified into law, but we need more than the law to stop this trend. We need a recommitment to the principles of free speech in the hearts and minds of all to assure the advancement of humankind.

07/30/22 A Rededication to Free Speech in America

As the previous Chirps on Free Speech have mentioned, Free Speech is under assault in America today. An assault that, if successful, will destroy America and impede, if not regress, the advancement of humankind. It must be vigorously opposed by all that believe in "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", for if not opposed, we will lose these cherished ideals in America.

It must be opposed not only by law, for "The Law is Not All", but by rededicating ourselves to the principles of free speech in America. Perhaps if we understood the principles of Free Speech and incorporated these principles into our words and deeds, there would be fewer assaults on free speech and less need for governmental intervention. We, therefore, need a recommitment to the principles of free speech in the hearts and minds of the American people to assure Liberty and Freedom, and for the continuation of the advancement of humankind.

08/15/22 Free Speech as a Means to Truth

Upon reading the book “A History of Dangerous Assumptions” by John Molesworth, I came across a section of this book that is very illuminative of the importance of Free Speech in obtaining Truth. I have extracted this section to create a new Article, “Free Speech as a Means to Truth”. This section discusses the necessity and importance of free speech to humankind, as was based on the writings of John Stuart Mill in his 1859 essay On Liberty. John Stuart Mill was a great philosopher, political economist and member of parliament was one of the greatest foes of the making of assumptions. His essay On Liberty is one of his most famous works. Here are some selected quotes dealing with free speech from John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty:

“. . . protection against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose… its own ideas and practices… on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development of any individuality not in harmony with its ways”

“That the sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the Liberty of Action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; and robbing those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.”

“All silencing of discussion is ‘an Assumption of Infallibility’.”

More information about this essay can be viewed on the Libertarianism webpage on “An Introduction to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty“.

12/01/22 Truth Detector - II

In my previous Chirp on “11/30/22 Truth Detector I”, I explained that economics is the best path to obtain the facts and truth. Dennis Prager has written an article, “Between Left and Right, How Do You Know Which Side Isn't Telling the Truth?”, in which he offers what may be the single most important indicator of who is more likely to be lying. It is not a perfect indicator of who is telling the truth -- there is no perfect indicator -- but it comes close. This indicator is:

“With rare exceptions, the party that calls for censorship is lying. People who tell the truth can deal with dissent and different opinions. In fact, truth-tellers welcome debate.”
 - Dennis Prager

In today’s America, we have seen the rise of censorship under various labels—misinformation or disinformation, ‘fact checking’, suppression of Social Media posts, the non-reporting of dissenting information by the Mainstream Media, and the restrictions on free speech in academia, as I have written in my Articles “Modern Journalism”, "Social Media and Free Speech", and “The Decline of Free Speech in America”.

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, political economist, Member of Parliament (MP), civil servant, and one of the most influential thinkers in history. In his book “On Liberty”, he wrote that there is a necessity for plural debate, for taking absolutely nothing for granted but holding all our dearest assumptions up for national scrutiny. There must be ‘protection against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose… its own ideas and practices… on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development of any individuality not in harmony with its ways’.

Consequently, free speech is necessary for freedom, or as I have written in my Article, “Free Speech as a Means to Truth”:

“We must remember that there is no Free Speech unless there is Free Speech for all. Thus, without free speech for all, there cannot be any truths, and anyone who would suppress free speech is not interested in obtaining the truth. We also should remember that the truth shall set you free, and without freedom, there can be no progress for humankind nor Liberties and Freedoms for all.”
 - Mark Dawson

As such, those that wish to censor, and those who do not have economic answers for their policy positions, are not truth tellers but activists committed to their goals irrespective of the truth. In doing so, they would destroy our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" in the pursuit of their goals. Therefore, all Americans should utilize these Truth Detectors and beware of these people, and not pay heed to their protestations, as they are not truth tellers but truth deniers.

12/10/22 The Real Existential Threat

For many months we have been harangued about the existential threat to our democracy posed by former President Trump and his MAGA supporters. Although they claim that these people are an existential threat, they give no existential reasons for their threat other than they are opponents of the political policies and agendas of Democrats and Progressives. These people pose no threat to our Constitutional government nor to our Constitutional Rights, but they do pose a threat to the Democrat's and Progressive's constitutional interpretation of a democratic constitution (the primacy of the collective people), as opposed to a republican constitution (the primacy of the individual person) interpretation, as I have written in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". This difference in interpretation is not an existential threat but a robust disagreement. The only thing existential about this disagreement is that the loser of this argument may become politically irrelevant and be forced to change their political policies and agendas to be competitive in elections.

However, with the release of the ‘Twitter Files’ by Elon Musk, we now know who the real existential threat to our democracy is—Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, the Bureaucratic Swamp, and Big Tech, aided and assisted by the Mainstream Media. The (successful) efforts by Democrat Party Leaders, Democrat Candidates, and Progressives/Leftists to suppress within Big Tech the free speech rights of their opponents to influence the outcome of an election is an existential threat to our democracy. With the aid and assistance of the mainstream media in not uncovering nor covering this suppression of the free speech rights of dissidents or opponents to the political policies and agendas of Democrat Party Leaders, Democrat Candidates, and Progressives/Leftists, the Mainstream Media has become a part of this existential threat to our democracy.

It is an existential threat as these actions strike at the heart of the First Amendment and suppress the Free Speech Rights of those so targeted and, consequently, the Free Speech Rights of all Americans, as there must be free speech for all, or there will be no free speech for anyone. Free Speech of which there is no compromise, no excuses, and no exceptions to Free Speech, for to restrict Free Speech is to have no Free Speech (the exceptions are few, narrow, and far between that deal with the directed physical harm to persons or the destruction of personal property, as well as in social media the assisting in criminal activities and dissemination of pornography).

We have also seen a concerted effort by these same parties to strip the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which is antithetical to the intent of the Founding Fathers in ensuring that this Natural Right is sacrosanct in our society and protected against governmental interference. This effort along with their support for other violations of The Bill of Rights, too numerous and complex to discuss in this Chirp, demonstrates that these same parties pose an existential threat to our democracy.

The American people need to wake up from their slumber and recognize and oppose these existential threats to our society, or we shall continue down the slippery slope in the erosion of our Natural and Constitutional Rights and eventually into despotism.

12/13/22 A Public or Private Carrier

In response to the release of the ‘Twitter Files’, which revealed Twitter-Government cooperation to censor tweets, many commentators have retorted that Twitter is a private business and may choose what or what not is to be allowed within their private business. For most private businesses, this is very true, but Twitter is more than a private business—it is a Public Carrier business.

A Common Carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a Public Carrier in some civil law systems) is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport. A common carrier offers its services to the general public under a license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier (subject to judicial review) with independence and finality as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.

Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, internet service providers, telecommunications providers, cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., canal operating companies, trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers. In the United States, telecommunications carriers are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission under title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

A Private Carrier is a company that transports only its own goods, and the carrier's primary business is not transportation. Private carriers may refuse to sell their services at their own discretion, but common carriers must treat all customers equally. Some corporations mix both systems, using common carriers and private carriage in what is called a blended operation.

As such, Twitter is a Public Carrier and must treat all customers equally except to restrict content that is forbidden as defined by 47 USC 230: Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material. Therefore, as a Public Carrier, they have no right to censor any content except as above in 47 USC 230. Much as phone companies must treat all their customers equally, Twitter must treat all its users equally. A phone company may not listen to its customer's conversations and censor any conversation that they deem harmful, nor can it suspend or terminate a phone number without just cause, such as non-payment for services rendered. If Twitter wishes to claim that they are a Private Carrier, then it cannot be afforded the legal protections that 47 USC 230 provides. Thus, Twitter would be subject to slander, libel, and other publishing laws for the content posted on Twitter, as newspapers and magazines are subject to slander, libel, and other publishing laws for the content that they publish.

Twitter has also become a public forum where its users can express their thoughts and opinions, as well as obtain information to formulate their thoughts and opinions. Consequently, they have a duty and responsibility as a public forum to protect the Free Speech rights of their users. They also have a duty and responsibility to not interfere in the political processes, especially elections, in any manner whatsoever. The same could also be said about Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and others in their public forum actions.

The recent efforts that Elon Musk has undertaken to reform Twitter are a good first step but must be vigorously pursued by Mr. Musk to ensure Twitter operates as a Public Carrier. These efforts should also be undertaken by Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and other Public Carries of user-posted comments to ensure that they operate under the rules and regulations of a Public Carrier.

12/14/22 Government Interference in Free Speech

The First Amendment to the Constitution prevents government involvement in the Natural Free Speech Rights of Americans. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government may not solicit nor be involved in any private party’s actions in the exercise of any Constitutional Rights of a person (i.e., the legal doctrine that private entities cannot do for the government that which it cannot legally do for itself). As such, the recent revelations that the government and Twitter cooperated with each other in restricting Twitter users' Free Speech rights is an assault on our Constitutional Rights by these government actors. All government actors have an affirmative duty to ensure that the Constitutional Rights of a person are protected and that any infringement of these rights is subject to criminal and civil prosecutions for the violations of these rights.

This assault that if it is not stopped, and the offenders punished for these actions, bodes ill for our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. The American people's seeming unconcern about these actions of the government in Free Speech is a poor reflection of the state of proper civic education in America. Worse, as they should know better, is the Mainstream Media’s lack of coverage and outrage about these government actions. But then again, the Mainstream Media has been cooperating for many decades with Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in their coverage of Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives, which in itself is despicable as an independent Free Press is essential to our societal checks and balances against government overreach that is essential in retaining our Liberties and Freedoms. And even far worse is the Democrat Party Leader's lack of condemnation of these government actions, as all office holders take an Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”, and their lack of condemnation demonstrates that they do not take their oath seriously.

The problem with bringing to justice those government actors who have assaulted our Constitutional Rights is that the very people who assaulted our rights are responsible for bringing criminal and civil prosecutions. Thus, we have the legal problem of Nemo judex in causa sua, a dictum that translates to “no one should be a judge in his/her own cause”, which is widely considered a pre-requisite to a reliable, trustworthy judicial system. This principle is meant not merely to prevent a potential wrong-doer from condoning his errors by judging the validity of his actions but also, more importantly, to preserve public confidence in the sanctity and independence of the judiciary.

The appointment of a Special Prosecutor to peruse this matter is insufficient to assure justice, as the person appointed would be appointed by the person who may be investigated (i.e., the Attorney General of the United States), and this special prosecutor would be under the influence of the Attorney General. Congress may appoint, through appropriate legislation, a Special Prosecutor, but given the bitter partisanship of Congress and the partisanship of the allegations, I do not expect this to happen. We are, therefore, left with the conundrum of how to protect our rights when the Legislative and Executive Branches can not nor will not do so.

The answer is that the Supreme Court must take an extra ordinary step and become directly involved to resolve this conundrum. Under their Oath of Office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”, they must appoint a Special Prosecutor when the Legislative or Executive Branches are unable, unwilling, or cannot preserve public confidence in the sanctity and independence of a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Legislative or Executive Branches. This Special Prosecutor would only answer to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preserve their independence and to ensure they are operating within the boundaries of the law. Otherwise, the government may freely trample upon the Constitutional Rights of the people if this conundrum is not resolved.

01/16/23 The Elimination of Harmful Language

Stanford University has instituted a policy for the “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” that has the stated goal:

“The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) is a multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford.

The goal of the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is to eliminate* many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent, and biased (e.g., disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias) language in Stanford websites and code. The purpose of this website is to educate people about the possible impact of the words we use. Language affects different people in different ways.

This website focuses on potentially harmful terms used in the United States, starting with a list of everyday language and terminology.** Our “suggested alternatives” are in line with those used by peer institutions and within the technology community.”

Such an initiative is a clear violation of the Natural Free Speech rights of students and employees of Stanford University. It is also antithetical to the goals of all centers of higher learning for the free and unfettered discovery and exchange of knowledge by all involved in higher education. We should also remember that:

“Free speech is not just another value. It’s the foundation of Western civilization.”
 - Jordan Peterson

It is also true that the enforcement of this policy can only be achieved through threats of punishment, which bespeaks of despotism.

Harmful Language is part and parcel of human nature and cannot be eliminated by any actions except self-control by the offender. It is also true that one person’s definition of harmful language can, and is, different from another person’s definition of harmful language, which brings upon the conundrum, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell:

“The most basic question is not what is harmful language, but who shall decide what is harmful language?”

Often, the deciders of harmful language have a social or political agenda for their decisions, which further violates the Natural Rights of those they target. A much better approach is to remind all that polite and respectful speech is the most acceptable form of speech. As I have written in my article on Pearls of Wisdom, we should all Always Be Polite and Respectful and Be the Better Person in all our conduct with other persons. The proper sanction for harmful speech is the admonishment by those around the speaker for their words, and if they continue to engage in harmful speech, then they should be ostracized by all respectable persons.

One of the purposes of higher education is to mold the character of the students, which can be accomplished by the Professors admonishing harmful language and asking a student to leave class until they can regain control of their language, as well as reminding them that their conduct can influence the grades they receive. This, of course, presumes that the Professors themselves engage in polite and respectful speech, and if they should not do so, they should be admonished or ostracized by the other professors and the administrators of the centers of higher learning.

If we keep these Pearls of Wisdom in mind, then there would be no need for an “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” by any group, organization, or business and, consequently, no violations of the Natural Rights of any person.

01/20/23 Toxic Ideology

Western Europe has discovered a new excuse to encroach upon the Natural Rights of its populace. This excuse has the surface appearance of being beneficial to its populace, but its consequences are destructive to a free society. This excuse is for the elimination of ‘Toxic Ideology’ by the suppression and prosecution of ‘hate speech’. Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences laws are being passed in Western Europe, and people are being prosecuted and convicted for violations of these laws.

These laws have the effect of prohibiting the free speech of individuals that disagree with the official policy positions of the government. And, as usual, these laws are mostly targeted at the right wing of "The Political Spectrum" while only rarely being enforced against the left wing.

Europe’s ‘anti-hate’ laws and arrests are a warning for free speech in America, as House Democrat Representative Sheila Jackson Lee has introduced a bill that is a prime example of anti-hate speech and Toxic Ideology legislation. As Jonathan Turley has written in his article “House Bill Would Criminalize Social Media Postings Supporting “White Supremacy” or “Replacement Theory”:

“The anti-free speech movement in the United States continues to grow with alarming speed among writers, journalists, academics, and most importantly Democratic members of Congress. Members now openly call for censorship and the manipulation of what citizens see and read. Yet, even in this environment, a recent proposed by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Tx.) is a menacing standout. Jackson has introduced a bill that is an almost impenetrable word salad of convoluted provisions. However, what is clear (perhaps the only clear thing) is that the “Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023” would gut the First Amendment and create effective thought crimes. The bill is not going to pass. However, the anti-free speech elements of the bill are deeply disturbing because they reflect successful efforts at speech criminalization in other countries.”

While this legislation will not be considered nor passed by the House of Representatives, we know that the Democrats are relentless in the pursuit of their goals. They, therefore, can be expected to try to slip in much of these anti-hate speech goals in other legislation. Consequently, all freedom-loving people should be alert and oppose these anti-hate speech goals, for as Edmund Burke has said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

As with all such matters of determining what is or isn’t covered in discriminatory legislation, I would paraphrase the great American economist and commentator Thomas Sowell:

"The most basic question is not what is Toxic Ideology or hate speech, but who shall decide what is Toxic Ideology or hate speech?"

As Alan Dershowitz has often remarked about the “Shoe on the other foot”, what would the supporters of this legislation think about this legislation if Conservatives and Republicans decided what was Toxic Ideology or hate speech? I suspect that they would be howling about the decisions that they made and claiming that their free speech rights were being violated. Consequently, nobody’s free speech rights should be circumvented nor violated, for:

“Free speech is not just another value. It’s the foundation of Western civilization.”
 - Jordan Peterson

01/26/23 Allegations of Detestation

The allegations by many Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders that a person is a Right-wing Extremist, Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, Bigoted, or Hater, along with other words and terms as I have written in my article,  "Divisiveness in America", are only truthful allegations depending on the definition of these terms and words by the accuser. Many of those persons that cast aspersions upon others, through the utilization of these terms and words, are not utilizing the dictionary definition of these terms and words. As Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct, they, therefore, believe that anyone who would disagree with their policies must harbor the attitudes of these dictionary definitions of these terms or words. Therefore, when Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders utilize these terms and words, they only mean someone who disagrees with their policy positions regarding these terms and words, and not that the person so accused has the attitudes of the dictionary definition of these terms and words.

This is part and parcel of their strategy and tactics to sow Divisiveness in America for electoral advantage purposes by sowing detestation, fear, and loathing against anyone who would disagree with the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' policies. This divisiveness, along with "Political Correctness" and "Wokeness", is also an intimidation tactic for the purpose of silencing their opponents through shaming or fear of retaliation. This strategy and tactics are despicable, as they attempt to infringe on the free speech rights of their opponents, and they are lying to the American public to garner votes or suppress the votes of their opponents. Any politician or government official who engages in this strategy and tactics is not to be trusted as a leader in America and should not be elected or appointed official. Any commentator that engages in this strategy and tactics should be chastised and ignored, as they are dissimulators of falsehoods upon the American public.

If someone utilizes these terms or words against me for my opposition to the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' policies, then I proudly wear these terms and words. If, however, they mean the dictionary definitions of these words; then I soundly reject this characterization of myself. Those that know me, and those that have read my Articles and Chirps, know that I am firmly opposed to anyone who meets the dictionary definition of these terms and words by my commitment to the Natural Rights of all individuals. All those that have unjustly suffered these allegations of detestation should adopt this attitude and vigorously respond to these allegations of detestation in a like manner as I have responded.

Until we can end this strategy and tactics of divisiveness, we will continue the bitter partisanship that has gripped America, and we will be unable to solve the problems and issues that beset America and Americans. America and Americans would be much better off if we remembered that we should be able to disagree without being divisive or disagreeable. The ceasing of Allegations of Detestation is an important first step in achieving "A Civil Society", which should be the norm in American society.

02/13/23 House Committee Hearings on The Weaponization of Government - I

Distinguished Professor Jonathan Turley of the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University has testified at the first hearing of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, as he announced in his blog on “Turley Testifies on Censorship Before House Select Subcommittee”. He also posted his testimony for all to read, which can be downloaded here as a pdf document. I, myself, am very interested in this topic, as my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government" demonstrates. I found Professor Tutley’s testimony to be the most cogent comment on this topic.

As he has said in his blog post:

“The Twitter Files raise serious questions of whether the United States government is now a partner in what may be the largest censorship system in our history. The involvement cuts across the Executive Branch, with confirmed coordination with agencies ranging from the CDC to the CIA. Even based on our limited knowledge, the size of this censorship system is breathtaking, and we only know of a fraction of its operations through the Twitter Files. Twitter has 450 million active users but it is still only ranked 15th in the number of users, after companies such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Pinterest. The assumption is that the government censorship program dovetailed with these other companies, which continue to refuse to share past communications or work with the government. Assuming that these efforts extended to these larger platforms, it is a government-supported censorship system that is unparalleled in history.

Regardless of how one comes out on the constitutional ramifications of the government’s role in the censorship system, there should not be debate over the dangers that it presents to our democracy. The United States government may be outsourcing censorship, but the impact is still inimical to free speech values that define our country.”

In his testimony, he also points out that many supporters of censorship in social media of quote Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

“. . . the character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”
 - Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

While not pointing out a further statement by Justice Holmes:

“. . . we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loath and believe to be frought (sic) with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that at an immediate check is required to save the country.”
 - Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

They also do not point out Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis's quote:

“If there be time to discover through discussion the falsehood and the fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech not enforced silence.”
 - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

There is also a Supreme Court ruling that is directly applicable to this topic:

“The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas . . . is . . . one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes . . . [A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. . . . Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . [F]reedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship.”
 - Supreme Court ruling on Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949)

Let us all remember these quotes when thinking about freedom of speech, and we should all read Professor Turley’s testimony to understand the scope of the problem. We Americans should also forthwith demand an end to The Weaponization of Government to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms.

02/24/23 Free Speech and Parental Rights

While I am a free speech absolutist, I do believe that there are some exceptions to free speech absolutism. These exceptions are speech that directly incites violence or criminal activity, speech that poses direct harm to the listeners (i.e., shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater), and speech that is intended to intimidate those involved in a judicial proceeding to influence the outcome of the judicial proceeding.

I would never accept restrictions on free speech, but I am troubled when it comes to Free Speech when it conflicts with the Parental Right to raise their children in shaping their morals, ethics, and character. Parents should have the right to determine what speech is acceptable in the rearing of their children and which speech is unacceptable to them if they believe that the speech is deleterious to their child's upbringing. This Parental Right can, and often have been abused by parents. However, this Parental Right has also been abused by those that are not the parents of children. Too often, parents narrowly constrict what their children can read, hear, and view, and too often, others widen what children can read, hear, and view beyond what is acceptable to parents.

My new Article, “Free Speech and Parental Rights”, examines this topic and the dilemmas in resolving the conflicts between free speech and parental rights.

03/14/23 Democracy and Freedoms at Risk

“Americans are increasingly threatened by state-sponsored censorship that puts our democracy and freedoms at risk”, begins a new commentary by Michael Shellenberger, “Democrats ignore my Twitter Files testimony at their peril and ours”. This commentary is based upon his testimony, along with the testimony of journalist Matt Taibbi, before the House Weaponization of the Federal Government Committee. His rational and reasonable commentary illuminates the dangers of "Big Tech" censorship to Free Speech and our "American Ideals and Ideas".

It also mirrors some of what I have written in my Article "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression", especially the conclusion of my article:

“In the past, we were rightly concerned about the suppression of free speech and a free press by the government and the associated impacts on our Freedoms and Liberties of this suppression. This was the reason for the adoption of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. However, today this suppression of free speech and a free press is not coming from the government but this suppression of free speech and a free press is coming from Conglomerate Newspapers, Mainstream Media, and Big Tech. A suppression that is equally as dangerous as governmental suppression. In the past, we depended upon the diversity of opinion by newspapers and journalism to spread diverse opinions and allow the American public to make informed decisions. Today, however, with the rise of Conglomerate Newspapers, Mainstream Media, and Big Tech, there is little diversity of opinion in and between these organizations. We need to recognize the free speech implications of Conglomerate Newspapers, Mainstream Media, and Big Tech suppression and rectify this suppression. Otherwise, the Freedoms and Liberties of all Americans are endangered.”

In his testimony, Michael Shellenberger dealt with the government’s involvement in the indirect censoring of free speech on "Social Media". Censorship that would be unconstitutional if it were directly done by the government. As noted by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, “If government officials are directing or facilitating such censorship, it raises serious First Amendment questions. It is axiomatic that the government cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.” Michael Shellenberger’s and Matt Taibbi’s testimony laid out the means and methods that social media and the government cooperated with each other to censor free speech. It also laid out the consequences if this cooperation is allowed to continue.

Their testimony, along with their questioning by the Democrat Congresspersons, also illuminated the hostility of the Democrats to the concept of Free Speech. The Democrat Congresspersons' questions and comments exposed their hostility to Free Speech for anyone that disagrees with their points of view, and their blasé attitude toward government interference in the free speech rights of anyone who would so disagree with them.

Free Speech of which there is no compromise, no excuses, and no exceptions to Free Speech, for to restrict Free Speech is to have no Free Speech (the exceptions are few, narrow, and far between that deal with the directed physical harm to persons or the destruction of personal property). Misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and falsehoods are no excuse for restricting free speech, as it is disputable and unworkable to determine the truthfulness or falsehoods of free speech. The response to misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and falsehoods is more free speech to counter what you may disagree with.

Thus, we are at a critical juncture in America. Our First and Second Constitution Amendment rights are under assault by the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Big Tech, and Government institutions. An assault that bodes ill for our American Ideals and Ideas. All Liberty and Freedom-loving Americans need to these assaults and reclaim our heritage of a freedom-loving people. Otherwise, we will become serfs to the government, and our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" will be determined and dispensed by the government rather than inherent in our humanity and citizenship.

05/08/23 Hate Speech

If your definition of hate speech is that if anyone disagrees with your opinions, then they must be uttering Hate Speech, then most all speech is Hate Speech as people often disagree with each other. There have also been calls for censorship of hate speech in all forms of media; "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media", as well as in "Big Tech",  "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education". Anything that does not comport with Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' ideology is to be considered hate speech and should be constricted if not outright banned. It is also an unfortunate fact that many assertions of hate speech are often based on policy disagreements rather than ‘hate’, and they are often lodged in an attempt to silence the opposition. However, the question is, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is hate speech, but who shall decide what is hate speech?"

Such censorship is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and an affront to the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of all persons. But for a heretic-hunting Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, none of that matters. It’s not about how you say it, how rigorously you argue it, or how charitably you present it; it’s about whether you affirm or dissent from their new orthodoxy. To dissent is to be subject to allegations of hate speech and the imposition of censorship, and dissent will be determined by themselves and themselves alone. Most Americans have also forgotten, or did not know, that Free Speech is indispensable to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms, as I have written in my Chirp on 02/22/22 Free Speech is Essential. Or, as George Washington has said, "If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

Most Americans are offended by hate speech, and they are inclined to support censorship of hate speech because they are appalled by its content. No rational person likes hate speech, but a rational person also understands that preserving free speech entails the toleration of hate speech. The best means to counter hate speech is more free speech in opposition to hate speech. However, there is a category of hate speech that is often not acknowledged in modern America, as it is a subtle hate speech, but it has far-reaching consequences. This is a hate speech that attempts to demonize America or individuals or groups of Americans based upon their political opinions, as I have written in my Chirp on 04/21/22 The Real Hate Speech.

This is the form of hate speech that the Biden Administration seems especially committed to—labeling as hate speech and censoring the free speech of individuals or groups of people that disagree with the policy positions of the Biden Administration. And, as usual, this censorship is mostly targeted at the right wing of "The Political Spectrum" while only rarely being targeted against the left wing. This censorship is not only in the words of the Biden Administration demonizing the opposition but in the actions of government agencies to intimidate, if not outright criminalize, any opposition to their policy positions.

When the hand of government is utilized to crush opposition, then we do not live in a democracy, but we live under despotism, i.e., dominance through the threat of punishment. Despotism is always the end result of censorship, and the use of allegations of hate speech is only a means to accelerate the imposition of this despotism.

06/30/23 Shouting Us Down

In reading an article by Jeffrey A. Tucker, “Should a Real Expert Debate or Not?”, I was struck by the following statement:

“I’ve become suspicious of people who believe that their best strategy for winning an argument is to interrupt, shout, spit, fling clever rhetoric at ever higher decimal levels, and hurl insults. These people are also good at yelling out technical details in great rapidity so that they cannot be checked in real time.”

“A person with a real command of facts, theories, and real experience can patiently listen to contrary views and answer them with calm reason. There is no grounds to interrupt. On the contrary, all such a person needs is a bit of quiet and some willingness to listen. That person will win the debate against the most belligerent opponent.”

 - Jeffrey A. Tucker

Alas, it is an unfortunate fact that most Progressives/Leftists believe that the free speech of their opponents needs to be silenced or shouted down. I also find it insidious that they often resort to platitudes and unsupported “facts” to counter their opponents’ points. Their platitudes and facts are often only beliefs, not supported by "Rationality" and "Reasoning", and are unaccompanied by the Burden of Proof that is incumbent upon them. When they do this, they believe that their assertions should be accepted as axioms that cannot be challenged. When this occurs, I am also reminded of Hitchens's Philosophical razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Thus, whenever I observe this type of behavior, I can conclude that the disrupter's viewpoints are without substance and can be ignored and dismissed.

03/27/24 An Open Letter to Alan Dershowitz

Alan Dershowitz is an American lawyer and law professor known for his work in U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law. From 1964 to 2013, he taught at Harvard Law School, where he was appointed as the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law in 1993. Dershowitz is a regular media contributor, political commentator, and legal analyst.

He is a person that I highly respect and someone who I regularly read and then think about his articles and books, and I will sometimes modify my opinion based upon his thoughts. While Alan is a Liberal Democrat, with whom I often disagree with his governmental and social policies, I am in solid agreement with his views on Constitutional law about our individual rights in our First Amendment rights of free speech, peaceful assembly, free press, religious freedom, and petitioning government, and our Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Constitution Amendments rights of the due processes of the law, as well as Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that each State not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens, the due process of the law, or the equal protection of the law.

In two of his newer books, “Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law” and “War on Woke: Why the New McCarthyism Is More Dangerous Than the Old”, he examines how modern Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are destroying the Constitution and individual rights. Get Trump makes clear that unconstitutional efforts to stop Trump from retaking the presidency challenge the very foundations of our liberty: due process, right to counsel, and free speech. War on Woke exposes new McCarthyite tendencies and tactics of academia, the media, and the business community, especially high-tech, that promote closed-minded intolerance.

In the book War on Woke, Alan states that the bedrock principles of American democracy and jurisprudence are:

“This new McCarthyism challenges the basic tenets of the classic liberal (in the traditional sense) state: Freedom of expression; due process; presumption of innocence; right to counsel; equal application of the law; tolerance and respect for differing viewpoints; an acceptance of the reality that in a democracy, no one always gets their way. And noble ends do not justify ignoble means.”

These bedrock principles are those with which I agree with and support and matters that I have written about in many of my Chirps and Articles.

Alan has recently been comparing what is happening in today’s America to McCarthyism. However, what is happening in today’s America is worse than McCarthyism, in that Senator McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee did not control the Executive Branch of Government and thus could not bring the full weight of government against their political opponents. Alas, in today’s America, we see the Executive branch persecuting and prosecuting their political opponent, which poses an existential threat to our rights and our Republican form of government, as I have written in my articles on “A Republic versus a Democracy” and "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution".

We are all creatures of our upbringing and education, and the times that we grew up in, and we all have political biases that shape our person. As such, Alan was shaped by the words and deeds of conservatives and liberals, as well as the Democrat and Republican Parties of the 1950s and 1960s. Consequently, his perspective is clouded by the events of his youth, and he does not fully appreciate how much conservatives and liberals, and Democrat and Republican views and opinions have changed since then. Indeed, the views and opinions of both conservatives/liberals, and Democrats/Republicans have switched so much that they mirror the views and opinions of each other from the 1950’s and 1960’s. He also fails to recognize that the power and control that the Conservatives and Republicans wished to exercise in the 1950s and 1960s is the power and control that the Progressives and Democrats wish to exercise in modern America. He also does not fully understand that modern Democrat Party Leaders are more interested in being rulers rather than leaders, as I have examined in my article on "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". Alan does a good job of trying to overcome these biases, and he critiques both sides of the political spectrum, but he fails to appreciate the full extent of this change from the 1950s to the 1960s.

As I am a "Constitutional Conservative", I believe that he goes a little light on his criticisms of Democrat Party Leaders. In particular, his tepid support and belief in the good intentions of Attorney General Merrick Garland is misplaced, as Attorney General Garland is leading the Justice Department that poses a threat to our individual rights, and as the leader of the Justice Department he bears ultimate responsibility for their actions, and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitutional rights of all Americans. In this, Attorney General Garland has failed, which makes him part of the problem.

Alan is a big believer, as am I, in “the shoe on the other foot” legal analysis of the issues, which is another way of saying, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. In this, he is properly concerned that the actions being taken by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders will be taken by future Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders if they regain power. However, the devil we know poses such an existential threat to our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" that the future possible threats are of less importance than removing the current threats.

The questions I have for Alan are “What are the determinants to know when Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have Cross the Rubicon and have become an existential threat to America and Israel?” and “Have they already crossed the Rubicon?”. If or when they have crossed the Rubicon, “Will you call for the election of Republicans in the 2024 elections to end this existential threat?” or “Will you continue to hope that you can change the Progressives and Democrats practices and end this existential threat?”. Thus, Alan has a Hobson's Choice of the necessity of acting on two objectionable alternatives from his perspective. Elect Republicans to stop this existential threat or to continue to believe that you can change Progressives/Democrat Party Leaders' words and deeds and risk the possibility that they will destroy America and Israel before you change their minds.

Given the religious fervor that permeates those who believe in these practices, as I have Chirped on “03/12/24 Onward, Progressive Soldiers”, it can hardly be expected that they will change their minds based on "Reasoning" and "Rationality", but it can be expected that they will continue to engage in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" for those that would oppose them.

This is not only a Hobson's Choice for Alan Dershowitz but for all Americans, for if we do not end these practices by Progressives and Democrats, then we shall meanly lose the last best hope of earth.

07/01/24 Independence and Free Speech

In celebration of Independence Day, this month’s Book It selection is but one book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” by Jonathan Turley. This book examines the history and legal issues of Free Speech in America. However, it is neither a legal nor historical tome, but a readable, understandable, and enjoyable book suitable for the general public.A book that is a timely, revelatory look at freedom of speech—our most basic right and the one that protects all the others. Without freedom of speech, America would not have had Independence Day, as it was free speech that set into motion all the events that led to our independence from England.

Alas, Free Speech is under assault in modern America in our current age of rage. This book reminds us of the importance of Free Speech in preserving our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". At the very least, you should read and ponder the Introduction and Conclusion of this book to comprehend the importance of Free Speech and the current assaults on Free Speech in modern America.