There's lots of down right pompous posturing about 'free speech'. It means nothing unless you permit people to speak freely who you disagree with. That's a test that quite a few liberals fail. As far as I can see (from Australia) the vast majority of American conservatives fail it utterly.
The problem isn't that Nazis are speaking freely, it's that so many USians are listening to them and acting on what they hear. Why might that be? Well, I can't help noticing that nearly all who rally around the Nazis and neo-Nazis, for instance at Charlottesville in 2017 and at the Capitol on 1/6/2021, are white and most of them are men. Could it be that the popularity of Nazis and neo-Nazis in some quarters has a lot to do with backlash to civil rights gains of earlier decades?
Consider, too, the damage done to the middle and working classes by Reaganomics. Unfortunately but all too naturally for too many white USians, 2 + 2 = 3. They're itching to blame people of color and uppity women for the consequences of the Reagan administration's tax cuts, union busting, etc., and for the Clinton administration's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the late 1990s.
White supremacy is absolutely the problem, yes. But economic anxiety isn't the cause and never has been, that's just an excuse that Nazis use to give themselves a paper thin veneer of legitimacy.
The larger problem is that Christianity has always been fascist adjacent at best, and it's influence has gone completely unchecked. Fascism came to this country wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible. Because churches have always had carte blanche to do whatever they want, along with their tax exempt status, they've been able to take even more undeserved political power than they already had.
In the past few decades the church, which has always been a bastion of white supremacy and authoritarian, anti-intellectual bullshit, saw it's power start to erode. It became possible for people to leave the church without dooming themselves to becoming pariahs, and church leaders lost their ability to functionally run the country. Then the church reacted the same way it always has when it felt threatened, it fully embraced violent authoritarianism and white supremacy.
Good point -- but I'd add that this doesn't apply to the Black church. Black churches were crucial bases for the civil rights movement, and to this day they also play a major role in getting "souls to the polls" on election days. In fact, it sounds like you're speaking primarily of the Roman Catholic Church. Is that the case? It also applies to much of (white) evangelical Protestant churches.
The black church isn't as bad as the white church, but Christianity itself is the problem. Homophobia, white supremacy, antisemitism, and anti-intellectualism are just as fundamental to Christianity as Jesus. The black church isn't as evil as the white church, but that has more to do with Christianity's inherent racism than anything else. Black folks made the church better because they literally had no choice.
Christianity is inherently authoritarian and sadistic. Unfortunately this country got stuck with puritan assholes to begin with and there's never really been the kind of bloody internecine fighting between sects like there was in Europe to force a degree of restraint in the regional church cultures. So, with few exceptions, American churches have never had to temper their bloodlust with a degree of practicality or humanity.
Great summary of where we're at. The Trump/Musk/Fox echo chamber is particularly pernicious, vapidly stupid comment bootlicked into malice broadcast into propaganda, no wonder half the country has lost their mind. Vance is in a category unto himself, his sternly presented lecturing comes from a place of utter, soulless depravity, free speech for me but never for thee.
As a reminder, a major goal of Vladimir Putin as written in The Foundations of Geopolitics published in 1997, is the destruction of the USA and NATO. This organization was created in 1947 to protect the security and freedom of its member nations. Well guess what folks, the security and freedoms of the United States has been compromised by Trump who sold his soul and our country to Vladimir Putin when he went to Russia and pulled down his pants to have sex with a Russian girl.
In Russia, prostitution is legal and is a massively organized trade generating millions of dollars of black cash, which in turn is then used to funnel black cash into other countries to hurt their economies. Every prostitute on the streets of Moscow works for the KGB or the FSB. Some file reports every Friday along with accompanying photos of western men for the purpose of bribes. Every hotel room in Moscow where a foreigner stays - including Donald Trump - has cameras and listening devices. It would be foolish to believe that Trump has not been compromised and is now working as a Russian asset.
The Trumpers in our nation are in denial, nor are they capable of thinking outside of the four walls of the U.S. The process of Trump’s destruction of our country and our government is a mirror image of how Hitler gained control of Germany 100 years ago and was transported to the U.S. via Putin who spent 15 years working in East Germany as a Russian spy.
And whether the average American knows this or not, a Russian is now in control of our country. All those glorified words about justice, democracy, truth, law and order, constitutional government, and power by the people are no longer relevant. They all went up in smoke along with Trump’s criminal and treason trial documents.
"The threat I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor,” Vance said. “What I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America." This is probably the most horrifying thing that any President or VP of our nation has ever said.
Well, it was until they shouted down Zelensky on TV, calling him "ungrateful" and going on about, of all things, Hunter Biden's laptop. We should have expected this bile, given that Zelensky did NOT bow down to the attempted blackmail that led to the first impeachment.
There is no such thing as free speech. We always risk having to pay a price for what we say - like a punch in the nose or a baseless lawsuit. We only have the right to speak our mind without interference. I learned that in 2nd grade when a bully punched a kid in the nose for saying something he did not like. I would never buy a Tesla - my only punch in Musk's nose.
We held elections during WWII? Uh, last time I checked there were no Germans or Japanese on our soil, bombing our cities, including the capital. If there had been, would there have been a campaign, much less an election?
You raise very valid points. Yet, you undermine them (and our freedom of speech) by going too far. One example is your objection to ABC being sued "because George Stephanopoulos, echoing a judge, stated that a jury found Trump 'raped' E. Jean Carroll." Our freedom of speech does not (and should not) protect people saying something like that (which the speaker knew was false and which the speaker said for the purpose of seriously harming another person's reputation, and which did harm his reputation).
Even worse, you imply that an obvious and malicious falsehood should be protected merely because some "judge" said it. Judges are so strongly protected that far too many of them lie and knowingly violate our laws--especially when it comes to the freedom of speech. Judges are some of the worst violators of our freedom of speech because they are a lot like Trump (powerful, very strongly protected (including by other judges) and have very fragile egos). Just because a judge says something certainly does not make it true, and just because a judge does something doesn't make it legal. It's counterproductive to imply otherwise. If you would like an example, please consider the following.
Gangs of judges have publicly attacked and undermined the freedom of expression and freedom of association of students of Columbia, Stanford and Yale because of the political and religious viewpoint of some of the students on those campuses. Surely, every one of those judges knows that “the First Amendment prevents [any government employee] from discriminating [in any way] against speakers" (including lawyers, law students or college students) "based on their viewpoint.” Shurtleff v. City of Bos., 596 U.S. 243, 247 (2022). Government employees absolutely “may not exclude” or punish any “speech” of any person to repress any “viewpoint.” Id. at 258.
Moreover, before any judge can punish any person for anything, “the substantive law” identifies “proof or evidentiary requirements,” including “which facts are material,” i.e., “might affect the outcome” under “governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). SCOTUS precedent regarding the freedom of speech and press emphasizes material facts, and “the First Amendment mandates a ‘clear and convincing’ standard” of proof. Id. at 252. The opponent of speech must present “proof,” and it must have “the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 285-286 (1964). But the judges retaliating and discriminating against students and faculty at Columbia certain did not even purport to identify any fact (much less proof of any fact) pertaining to any victim of their punishment except one--the fact that a student had chosen to associate with students and faculty at a particular university.
We all should be much more concerned that an undisciplined gang of federal judges publicly pretended that something in our Constitution gave them the power to punish (regulate) political and religious "viewpoints" at "Columbia University." See https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/letter.pdf. Their express objective was to regulate (and even impose extrajudicial punishment because of) political and religious "Viewpoint(s)" on "the faculty and across the administration—including the admissions office."
The judges directly violated our freedom of expression by discriminating based on viewpoint (specifically, religious and political viewpoints). Then, they violated our freedom of association by declaring their extrajudicial punishment of students who merely associate with Columbia students or faculty: "we will not hire anyone who joins the Columbia University community—whether as undergraduates or law students— beginning with the entering class of 2024."
For extremely valid and vital reasons, our Constitution (Article VI) emphasizes that federal employment can be denied based on the refusal or failure to express only one viewpoint: acknowledging that the duty of every public servant is to "support this Constitution," and it further emphasizes that federal employment cannot be impeded in any way for any pretext based (directly or indirectly) on any sort of religious test ("no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States").
The federal judges' blatantly unconstitutional extrajudicial punishment went even further: "Columbia" is "disqualified" (by a gang of federal judges in a mere letter) "from educating the future leaders of our country." Nothing in our Constitution authorized judges to impose any punishment on any "person" (and the Fifth Amendment emphatically precluded depriving any person of any liberty) except with all "due process of law."
Despite the obvious illegality and unconstitutionality of these federal judges' misconduct, a law professor (Josh Blackman) had the audacity to declare this a "fitting tribute" precisely because the judges targeted a particular religious and political viewpoint (which they vaguely referred to as "anti-semitism"). See https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/06/federal-judges-to-boycott-law-clerks-from-columbia-university-due-to-virulent-spread-of-antisemitism/. Professor Blackman even added, "Other than Judge Solomson, I do not see any Jewish judges who have joined this letter. There is still time. And I don't think this program needs to be limited to federal judges."
A lot of what people were doing on some campuses was egregiously wrong and should have been opposed vigorously. But in no way were any wrongs (by private individuals) made any better by a gang of federal judges knowingly violating our Constitution to usurp powers that they KNEW were not only not given to them in our Constitution, but were expressly denied to them by particular provisions of our Constitution. A lot of lawyers, law professors and judges allowed or encouraged the obvious misconduct of those federal judges--because they shared the same political or religious viewpoints. It's no wonder that Trump and his co-conspirators believe lawyers, law professors and judges will do the same again.
This calls to mind Thomas Paine in the dissenting opinion of Justices Stevens, Blackmun and O’Connor in United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 688 (1992):
As Thomas Paine warned, an “avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty” because it leads a nation “to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws.” To counter that tendency, he reminds us:
“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
There's lots of down right pompous posturing about 'free speech'. It means nothing unless you permit people to speak freely who you disagree with. That's a test that quite a few liberals fail. As far as I can see (from Australia) the vast majority of American conservatives fail it utterly.
Letting Nazis speak freely and without consequences is part of how we got here.
The problem isn't that Nazis are speaking freely, it's that so many USians are listening to them and acting on what they hear. Why might that be? Well, I can't help noticing that nearly all who rally around the Nazis and neo-Nazis, for instance at Charlottesville in 2017 and at the Capitol on 1/6/2021, are white and most of them are men. Could it be that the popularity of Nazis and neo-Nazis in some quarters has a lot to do with backlash to civil rights gains of earlier decades?
Consider, too, the damage done to the middle and working classes by Reaganomics. Unfortunately but all too naturally for too many white USians, 2 + 2 = 3. They're itching to blame people of color and uppity women for the consequences of the Reagan administration's tax cuts, union busting, etc., and for the Clinton administration's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the late 1990s.
White supremacy is absolutely the problem, yes. But economic anxiety isn't the cause and never has been, that's just an excuse that Nazis use to give themselves a paper thin veneer of legitimacy.
The larger problem is that Christianity has always been fascist adjacent at best, and it's influence has gone completely unchecked. Fascism came to this country wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible. Because churches have always had carte blanche to do whatever they want, along with their tax exempt status, they've been able to take even more undeserved political power than they already had.
In the past few decades the church, which has always been a bastion of white supremacy and authoritarian, anti-intellectual bullshit, saw it's power start to erode. It became possible for people to leave the church without dooming themselves to becoming pariahs, and church leaders lost their ability to functionally run the country. Then the church reacted the same way it always has when it felt threatened, it fully embraced violent authoritarianism and white supremacy.
Good point -- but I'd add that this doesn't apply to the Black church. Black churches were crucial bases for the civil rights movement, and to this day they also play a major role in getting "souls to the polls" on election days. In fact, it sounds like you're speaking primarily of the Roman Catholic Church. Is that the case? It also applies to much of (white) evangelical Protestant churches.
The black church isn't as bad as the white church, but Christianity itself is the problem. Homophobia, white supremacy, antisemitism, and anti-intellectualism are just as fundamental to Christianity as Jesus. The black church isn't as evil as the white church, but that has more to do with Christianity's inherent racism than anything else. Black folks made the church better because they literally had no choice.
Christianity is inherently authoritarian and sadistic. Unfortunately this country got stuck with puritan assholes to begin with and there's never really been the kind of bloody internecine fighting between sects like there was in Europe to force a degree of restraint in the regional church cultures. So, with few exceptions, American churches have never had to temper their bloodlust with a degree of practicality or humanity.
Great summary of where we're at. The Trump/Musk/Fox echo chamber is particularly pernicious, vapidly stupid comment bootlicked into malice broadcast into propaganda, no wonder half the country has lost their mind. Vance is in a category unto himself, his sternly presented lecturing comes from a place of utter, soulless depravity, free speech for me but never for thee.
As a reminder, a major goal of Vladimir Putin as written in The Foundations of Geopolitics published in 1997, is the destruction of the USA and NATO. This organization was created in 1947 to protect the security and freedom of its member nations. Well guess what folks, the security and freedoms of the United States has been compromised by Trump who sold his soul and our country to Vladimir Putin when he went to Russia and pulled down his pants to have sex with a Russian girl.
In Russia, prostitution is legal and is a massively organized trade generating millions of dollars of black cash, which in turn is then used to funnel black cash into other countries to hurt their economies. Every prostitute on the streets of Moscow works for the KGB or the FSB. Some file reports every Friday along with accompanying photos of western men for the purpose of bribes. Every hotel room in Moscow where a foreigner stays - including Donald Trump - has cameras and listening devices. It would be foolish to believe that Trump has not been compromised and is now working as a Russian asset.
The Trumpers in our nation are in denial, nor are they capable of thinking outside of the four walls of the U.S. The process of Trump’s destruction of our country and our government is a mirror image of how Hitler gained control of Germany 100 years ago and was transported to the U.S. via Putin who spent 15 years working in East Germany as a Russian spy.
And whether the average American knows this or not, a Russian is now in control of our country. All those glorified words about justice, democracy, truth, law and order, constitutional government, and power by the people are no longer relevant. They all went up in smoke along with Trump’s criminal and treason trial documents.
E. Graham
"The threat I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor,” Vance said. “What I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America." This is probably the most horrifying thing that any President or VP of our nation has ever said.
Well, it was until they shouted down Zelensky on TV, calling him "ungrateful" and going on about, of all things, Hunter Biden's laptop. We should have expected this bile, given that Zelensky did NOT bow down to the attempted blackmail that led to the first impeachment.
Is JD Vance so desperate for attention that he’s compelled to speak tripe? Where’s Usha in all this?…. And where is Vivek, co-chair of DOGE?
There is no such thing as free speech. We always risk having to pay a price for what we say - like a punch in the nose or a baseless lawsuit. We only have the right to speak our mind without interference. I learned that in 2nd grade when a bully punched a kid in the nose for saying something he did not like. I would never buy a Tesla - my only punch in Musk's nose.
Hey Aaron bunch of right wingers are now pivoting to Ukraine funding to fight the Russians was bunch of fraud.
Can you please write new substack that debunks this nonsense with receipts and paper trail the Trump propaganda?
We held elections during WWII? Uh, last time I checked there were no Germans or Japanese on our soil, bombing our cities, including the capital. If there had been, would there have been a campaign, much less an election?
You raise very valid points. Yet, you undermine them (and our freedom of speech) by going too far. One example is your objection to ABC being sued "because George Stephanopoulos, echoing a judge, stated that a jury found Trump 'raped' E. Jean Carroll." Our freedom of speech does not (and should not) protect people saying something like that (which the speaker knew was false and which the speaker said for the purpose of seriously harming another person's reputation, and which did harm his reputation).
Even worse, you imply that an obvious and malicious falsehood should be protected merely because some "judge" said it. Judges are so strongly protected that far too many of them lie and knowingly violate our laws--especially when it comes to the freedom of speech. Judges are some of the worst violators of our freedom of speech because they are a lot like Trump (powerful, very strongly protected (including by other judges) and have very fragile egos). Just because a judge says something certainly does not make it true, and just because a judge does something doesn't make it legal. It's counterproductive to imply otherwise. If you would like an example, please consider the following.
Gangs of judges have publicly attacked and undermined the freedom of expression and freedom of association of students of Columbia, Stanford and Yale because of the political and religious viewpoint of some of the students on those campuses. Surely, every one of those judges knows that “the First Amendment prevents [any government employee] from discriminating [in any way] against speakers" (including lawyers, law students or college students) "based on their viewpoint.” Shurtleff v. City of Bos., 596 U.S. 243, 247 (2022). Government employees absolutely “may not exclude” or punish any “speech” of any person to repress any “viewpoint.” Id. at 258.
Moreover, before any judge can punish any person for anything, “the substantive law” identifies “proof or evidentiary requirements,” including “which facts are material,” i.e., “might affect the outcome” under “governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). SCOTUS precedent regarding the freedom of speech and press emphasizes material facts, and “the First Amendment mandates a ‘clear and convincing’ standard” of proof. Id. at 252. The opponent of speech must present “proof,” and it must have “the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 285-286 (1964). But the judges retaliating and discriminating against students and faculty at Columbia certain did not even purport to identify any fact (much less proof of any fact) pertaining to any victim of their punishment except one--the fact that a student had chosen to associate with students and faculty at a particular university.
We all should be much more concerned that an undisciplined gang of federal judges publicly pretended that something in our Constitution gave them the power to punish (regulate) political and religious "viewpoints" at "Columbia University." See https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/letter.pdf. Their express objective was to regulate (and even impose extrajudicial punishment because of) political and religious "Viewpoint(s)" on "the faculty and across the administration—including the admissions office."
The judges directly violated our freedom of expression by discriminating based on viewpoint (specifically, religious and political viewpoints). Then, they violated our freedom of association by declaring their extrajudicial punishment of students who merely associate with Columbia students or faculty: "we will not hire anyone who joins the Columbia University community—whether as undergraduates or law students— beginning with the entering class of 2024."
For extremely valid and vital reasons, our Constitution (Article VI) emphasizes that federal employment can be denied based on the refusal or failure to express only one viewpoint: acknowledging that the duty of every public servant is to "support this Constitution," and it further emphasizes that federal employment cannot be impeded in any way for any pretext based (directly or indirectly) on any sort of religious test ("no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States").
The federal judges' blatantly unconstitutional extrajudicial punishment went even further: "Columbia" is "disqualified" (by a gang of federal judges in a mere letter) "from educating the future leaders of our country." Nothing in our Constitution authorized judges to impose any punishment on any "person" (and the Fifth Amendment emphatically precluded depriving any person of any liberty) except with all "due process of law."
Despite the obvious illegality and unconstitutionality of these federal judges' misconduct, a law professor (Josh Blackman) had the audacity to declare this a "fitting tribute" precisely because the judges targeted a particular religious and political viewpoint (which they vaguely referred to as "anti-semitism"). See https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/06/federal-judges-to-boycott-law-clerks-from-columbia-university-due-to-virulent-spread-of-antisemitism/. Professor Blackman even added, "Other than Judge Solomson, I do not see any Jewish judges who have joined this letter. There is still time. And I don't think this program needs to be limited to federal judges."
A lot of what people were doing on some campuses was egregiously wrong and should have been opposed vigorously. But in no way were any wrongs (by private individuals) made any better by a gang of federal judges knowingly violating our Constitution to usurp powers that they KNEW were not only not given to them in our Constitution, but were expressly denied to them by particular provisions of our Constitution. A lot of lawyers, law professors and judges allowed or encouraged the obvious misconduct of those federal judges--because they shared the same political or religious viewpoints. It's no wonder that Trump and his co-conspirators believe lawyers, law professors and judges will do the same again.
This calls to mind Thomas Paine in the dissenting opinion of Justices Stevens, Blackmun and O’Connor in United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 688 (1992):
As Thomas Paine warned, an “avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty” because it leads a nation “to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws.” To counter that tendency, he reminds us:
“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”