The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT: the First Amendment Is History
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Back in the liberal 1960s-1970s, the most important judge in the United States not on the Supreme Court was David L. Bazelon, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1962-1980 and best friend of William Brennan, the Svengali of the Warren Court. Bazelon and Brennan would frequently collaborate on how to tee up cases for the Warren Court to issue landmark rulings upon.

Not surprisingly, back then Judge Bazelon was an ardent supporter of the First Amendment. From Jessel at Large:

In 1975, when broadcasting was at its zenith, David Bazelon, chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, wrote an article for the Duke Law Journal that eloquently made the case for why licensed media and the First Amendment were incompatible.

Sometimes the motive of the government is “laudable,” perhaps to improve the quality of programming or to mitigate racial discrimination, he wrote. “But under the First Amendment, the licensor’s motivation should be irrelevant: the exercise of power over speech leads the government knee-deep into regulation of expression. And that, we have always assumed, is forbidden by the First Amendment.”

Bazelon recognized that the temptation to regulate the press is always present. “Somehow we do not really think that the press should be free; they are too powerful, they are arbitrary, they are self serving….,” he wrote. “I have said before and I repeat now that the press has abused its tremendous power, particularly the power of TV, largely for its own private profit, at the expense of the public interest.

“But I do not personally believe in the efficacy of, nor do I think the First Amendment permits, government intervention to cure those abuses.”

Ironically, but not surprisingly, Judge Bazelon’s granddaughter, Establishment legal pundit Emily Bazelon (who can always be counted on for an amusing lack of self-awareness, such as her massive 2009 article in Slate in 2009 about how New Haven fireman Frank Ricci deserves to be stripped of his promotion because certain white families in New Haven have an invidious culture of studying hard to be expert firefighters — Emily herself is the Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law at Yale Law School, but her sinecure has nothing to do with her grandfather’s eminence), writes in the New York Times that while the First Amendment might have been all well and good in the past, it’s not worth keeping around today when Bad People are promoting Bad Ideas:

The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation
A torrent of propaganda, lies and conspiracy theories has weaponized the First Amendment.

It’s an article of faith in the United States that more speech is better and that the government should regulate it as little as possible. But increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. They think our formulations are simplistic — and especially inadequate for our era. Censorship of external critics by the government remains a serious threat under authoritarian regimes. But in the United States and other democracies, there is a different kind of threat, which may be doing more damage to the discourse about politics, news and science. It encompasses the mass distortion of truth and overwhelming waves of speech from extremists that smear and distract.

 
Hide 108 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Funny how it’s always 3rd world darks + frumpy spinsters who want to destroy the Free Speech White Men fought for to create civilization!

    • Agree: Fox, Richard B
  2. But in the United States and other democracies, there is a different kind of threat, which may be doing more damage to the discourse about politics, news and science. It encompasses the mass distortion of truth and overwhelming waves of speech from extremists that smear and distract.

    “How fascinating that these ‘extremists’ are always opposed to us politically. What a coincidence! And how dare they attempt to distort, smear, and distract. We don’t like them stepping on our toes.

    “Free Speech is an idea whose time is up. It was useful to us before, but now it threatens to be useful to our enemies. Hey, why stop with Free Speech? There’s more to that Bill of Rights that racist white men drew up back in prehistory. Not useful to us any more, not now that we’re on the verge of our long-awaited Glorious Victory. Just a few more weeks, and we can stop pretending, even.”

  3. I feel like I don’t have to check the Early Life section on Wikipedia anymore.

    • Agree: V. Hickel, Anonymousse
    • Replies: @J1234
    , @Anonymousse
  4. Clyde says:

    Judge Bazelon’s granddaughter – A fine illustration of the back slide into the primordial ooze. Done within one family/ Wiki says that Emily Bazelon is married with two children, looks sane and decent.

    • Replies: @Altai
  5. ‘distract’ is such a telling word in this context.

  6. They have been pushing this one recently, but I am skeptical about their chances. The average American loves having freedom of speech, however they misunderstand it. I don’t think they really need government enforcing speech restrictions anyway. For all practical purposes, very few of us have freedom of speech about anything interesting.

    I was just listening to something in the past week (I can’t remember what) where someone said a joke among the Chinese was that they don’t have freedom to criticize their government, but Americans don’t have freedom to compliment our president.

  7. @Mr McKenna

    What genuine, right-thinking American, after all, could possibly object to having soldiers quartered in their home?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @MB
  8. Old Prude says:

    That the media can make white women hysterical about the black criminals dying while resisting arrest demonstrates the power of the megaphone. Not being able to make a joke about it at work demonstrates the weakness of the first amendment.

  9. Rob McX says:

    Steve, you give the impression that the last paragraph of the post is yours, but it’s part of Bazelon’s article.

  10. Since we are free already, free speech has become an unnecessary risk. And aren’t there risks aplenty out there already – are we really in desperate need of more of them? – – – – etc. etc.

    Thoughts like those arise whenever women collide with rules. – Men, JWv Goethe once infamously wrote, make the rules – and women the exceptions.

    Add narcissism to that, which is the arch enemy of civility and equality of rights, and you have the picture completed in all it’s fancy – disastrousness and intellectual – indigence and pernuity – with Emily Bazelon sitting right in the middle.

  11. The Economist (and other liberal publications) simultaneously gloat about the leader of the Slovak Nationalist party being imprisoned for five years for using an evil combination of numbers, while crying about free speech in Russia, Turkey and China.

    • Agree: Rob McX
    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Mr. Anon
  12. unit472 says:

    It is also an ‘article of faith’ among people like Emily that ‘diversity’ is more important than ‘Free Speech’ which is the real thrust of her argument. It just won’t do to have people question why a person of limited ability be given preference over a more accomplished person less ‘diversity’ suffer.

    OTOH her father’s argument that Federal licensees would be beholden to their Federal licensors does have merit. We got around this for a long time by having the Federal Communication Commission set the standards for licensed broadcasters but this ‘solution’ has become less effective over time as broadcasters merged and consolidated their hold on licenses and were then subsumed themselves into gigantic conglomerates whose interests intersect with government policy far beyond mere broadcasting. For example, does Comcast really care what the FCC might do to an NBC affiliate’s broadcast license in Denver should it turn out it hired an unlicensed leftist ‘security guard’ who shot to death a man at a protest rally there? Not really as that affiliate is such a minor part of Comcast’s business its broadcast license is irrelevant.

    Then, of course, there are the unlicensed internet companies who do not even have an FCC to monitor their operations. Why is it that, because I have an Apple phone Apple feels free to send me, unsolicited, what it thinks is news I need to know. Where does Facebook get the right to post on my Facebook page exhortations to vote or some other bit of news it wants me to see?

  13. @Rob McX

    Right. Steve, you ended the blockquote too soon.

  14. Censorship of external critics by the government remains a serious threat under authoritarian regimes. But in the United States and other democracies, there is a different kind of threat

    She then totally misrepresents the nature of the threat in America and “other democracies”. In America 90% of media outlets are owned by 5 conglomerates. Conditions of oligopoly are present in many other “democracies”. These conglomerates can and do bar access to individuals on their media, even persons of very milquetoast , right-of-centre views.
    These individuals have recourse to small, independent outlets- like UR for example- often only known to small numbers of politically aware people.
    The brouhaha about “fake news” is a pretext to pass laws to force independent media to conform to the same standards as the conglomerates. That is censorship of external critics by the government. This is what these people want.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
  15. AndrewR says:

    Free speech was “good for the jews” 50 years ago. Now it’s very dangerous to the jews, so it’s obviously got to go

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @White Guy In Japan
  16. George says:

    Free speech and Chechens in the news. “Obscurantism will not win!!!!” – President of the 5th Republic of France Emmanuelle Macron.

    En Français:
    Professeur décapité dans les Yvelines – Emmanuel Macron : “L’obscurantisme ne gagnera pas”
    https://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Politique/Professeur-decapite-dans-les-Yvelines-Emmanuel-Macron-sur-les-lieux-du-crime-1707822

    En Anglais:
    Police detain nine people over beheading of French teacher in Paris suburb
    https://www.france24.com/en/france/20201017-nine-people-detained-over-beheading-of-french-teacher-in-paris-suburb

  17. Hibernian says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    This one actually came up a few years back. A property owner in a Western state sued the Fed Gov because Federal LEOs had camped out on their property. They lost. I don’t remember the reasoning or the level at which the case was decided.

  18. ATBOTL says:
    @william munny

    You are very naive. Laws against free speech are already on the books in the form of “hate crime” laws in which political speech is used to give white people longer sentences. In recent years, courts have stretched these laws further and further. It’s not necessary now for a white person to make “racist” statements during the commotion of a crime for that crime to be considered a hate crime. Simply making “racist” statements in any place or time makes a white person guilty of a hate crime. The courts have ruled that racist intent can be inferred from a white person’s statements totally apart from the alleged crime.

    We will have “European style hate speech” laws in America soon.

  19. It’s an article of faith in the United States that more speech is better and that the government should regulate it as little as possible. But increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

    Notice the fraudulent use of the first person plural.

    There is no “we” here.

    Seriously this is not the least bit complicated: In the 60s free speech was still useful for criticizing the WASP establishment and peddling minoritarian propaganda. Now minoritarianism is the official ideology and free speech is allows a few deplorable gentiles to criticize it.

    The plain reality: 1880 has been a lot more damaging than 1619. Blacks have been like a boat anchor that drags along the bottom, causing friction, slowing us down, occasionally snagging and causing a rude shock. Nice if we could cut it loose … but whites know how to sail and we could keep dragging it another 400 years.

    In contrast, with the Jews we brought in a high-IQ, very verbal population, fundamentally hostile to the majority and core American traditions and republican ideals. In just 50-60 years after their rise to dominance we’re holed beneath the water line. And the Jews are busy screaming “Nazi!” at and attacking anyone trying to apply a patch.

    ~~

    At this point … the only solution is separation. Separate boats.

    Minoritarians can gather all their precious oppressed minorities and woke good-thinkers and–blissfully free of our “oppression”!–zoom off in their brave new speedboat with the rainbow flag fluttering in the diversity breeze.

    We deplorables can then patch up the leaks and continue sailing with the Stars and Stripes fluttering in the breeze of Western Civilization. With the anchor chain shorter and competent loyal sailors back at the helm, we’ll actually make good headway.

    • Agree: BenKenobi
    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Achilles Wannabe
  20. Ano says:

    …it’s not worth keeping around today when Bad People are promoting Bad Ideas…

    Yes, but Big Brother doesn’t go just half way- He goes all the way.

    The United States Ministry of Truth (Consortium) aims not just to gag and repress Bad People promoting Bad Ideas, but also to gag and repress the Bad People who don’t believe in (and, infidels, roll their eyes at, even, gasp!, mock) the Good Ideas (Diversity, BLM, believe all women, defund the police, et. al.).

    Honestly, Mr Sailer, do you believe Emily Bazelon will be satisfied with just a Ministry of Truth for Bad Americans?

    Whether stated brazenly or recorded by Project Veritas (etc), more and more we find out the Emily Bazelons of this world want a Ministry of Love for Bad Americans as well.

  21. “Censorship of external critics by the government remains a serious threat under authoritarian regimes.”

    Nice. Censorship is bad when Authoritarians(TM) do it, but it’s ok when good people like us do it.

    “Censorship of external critics by the government” is one of the things that makes you authoritarian, sweetie.

  22. I believe Greg Cochran said free speech may not be that important to him. If so, that’s what concerns me about anyone with technocratic tendencies.

  23. Corn says:
    @william munny

    I heard that online too. Apparently the joke goes something like this:

    American traveler asks a Chinese man in a rather smug, self assured tone:

    “Can you criticize your government?”

    To which the Chinese man simply retorts:

    “Can you support your president?”

    • Thanks: Mr McKenna
  24. Altai says:

    Democracy seems like dictatorship when you’re against the people.

  25. Altai says:
    @Clyde

    It’s an illustration that the Blazelons and people like them are in a different stage and relationship to society in the US today and that that society has changed too. If her grandfather was born the same year as her he may not be the one writing such articles but he wouldn’t be saying what he did back then.

    To misquote from Lenin: ‘Principals for what?’

  26. Retired2 says:

    As a kid growing up in the 60s and 70s, it was very frustrating to see liberals score so many legal victories by the bill of rights. But we were dutifully taught in school that even if we didn’t like the results, the bill of rights are there to protect all of us and especially the minority. But the frustration continues, because as I watch the two tiered system of justice—still smarting from Nixon’s resignation while today worst criminals are not even brought up on charges—I ask, where is the ACLU? They are nowhere to be found.

    OK, I get it, we were fooled by the ACLU because they never stood for civil liberties for all, but only for a select minority which will soon be the majority. Now that I and my offspring are a threatened species, I better appreciate the Bill of Rights, but it is nothing but paper without a conservative version of the ACLU to basically go on a search and destroy mission. But what am I talking about? The only reason why The ACLU and the left have won is because the right, we conservatives and Republicans of yesteryear, would never use lethal force to suppress yesterdays minorities; so all my dreaming about a conservative ACLU to turn this around for the next generation is a waste of time because those left ACLU babies grew up and said, “Take via the Constitution, and keep via the gun.” So the days of majority rule with minority rights is over since the minority consists of the herd whose DNA is aggressively violent when threatened.

  27. With leftists, it’s always the same story: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

    The conservative reaction? Tax credits for those who publish allowable, right-wing Big Government viewpoints.

  28. @Rob McX

    Perhaps this was slyly on purpose, as the last paragraph might well express Steve’s sentiments but with an awareness of who the real “extremists” are. As he already stated, this Bazelon character lacks “self-awareness”.

  29. eD says:

    The first commentator, Mr. McKenna, put it best. They are going to stop pretending soon.

  30. Luigi says:
    @Mr McKenna

    You start right off with the wrong premise. The U.S. is not now, nor has it ever been “a democracy”. It is the exact opposite, a Representative Republic. There is no -we the people- in a democracy. A democracy, is a top down, mob rule, elitist definition of communism. A Representative Republic is a bottom up, of the people, for the people, by the people. While the communist democrats would love the U.S. to be a “democracy”, hopefully, undrugged minds with functioning cause and effect genes, will prevail.

    • LOL: Richard B
    • Replies: @Richard B
  31. Speaking of the BoR, exactly what does Joe Biden have planned for the Second Amendment?

    Go to the Biden Campaign link on guns; straight from the horse’s mouth.

    https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

  32. Corvinus says:

    “But increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. They think our formulations are simplistic — and especially inadequate for our era. Censorship of external critics by the government remains a serious threat under authoritarian regime.”

    Except it is NOT government censorship, but “censorship” in the form of gatekeeping by media companies as content providers that determine what is and what is not “patent and blatant misinformation”. From the article you cited:

    All told, in September the coup fabrication was shared more than 100,000 times from public Facebook pages, generating many millions of interactions and video views, according to the data source CrowdTangle. Alongside Bongino and Fox News, there were small drivers of traffic like Long Islanders for Trump, the Silent Majority Group and a county Republican organization in Oregon, as well as private groups with thousands of members that CrowdTangle doesn’t capture. By the end of the month, the fraction of Republicans who were not “confident” that the election “will be conducted in a fair and equal way” hit 65 percent, higher than it was for independents or Democrats, in an NBC News/SurveyMonkey tracking poll. This month, Trump retweeted a response to a Republican member of Congress, Mark Green, who suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi could stage a coup.

    The United States is in the middle of a catastrophic public-health crisis caused by the spread of the coronavirus. But it is also in the midst of an information crisis caused by the spread of viral disinformation, defined as falsehoods aimed at achieving a political goal. (“Misinformation” refers more generally to falsehoods). Seven months into the pandemic in America, with Trump leading the way, coronavirus skeptics continue to mock masks and incorrectly equate the virus with the flu. Throughout the campaign season, Trump and other Republicans have promoted a false narrative of widespread voter fraud, which Attorney General William Barr, as the country’s top law-enforcement official, furthered in a September interview on CNN when he said someone in Texas was indicted for filling out 1,700 ballots for other people, which never happened. As fires tore through California and the Pacific Northwest last month, the president cast doubt on the science behind global warming, and people in Oregon defied evacuation orders because of false rumors that antifa, a loose term for left-wing activists, was setting the blazes and looting empty homes.

    True, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in a unanimous opinion in 2017 that social media platforms are most critical for the exchange of information and ideas in our society today. That is why liberals and conservatives alike are thinking long and hard to ensure equal and fair access to social media platforms, even if ideas are unpopular or controversial. Regardless, the fact remains that we as American citizens do NOT have constitutional protections to air our views on any social media platform without being subject to censorship.

    Remember, Mr. Sailer, media companies, as artificial entities created by the state, have the liberty to shut down ideas from reaching the digital marketplace as content providers. Here these corporations are unique. The Supreme Court in media cases has tailored its rulings under the “Freedom Of The Press” clause and in citizen cases has tailored its rulings under the “Freedom Of Speech” clause. That is, it renders an opinion based on previous cases and past precedents in the appropriate area. Since 1936, twenty-six cases have made it clear that people who work for companies that produce and distribute free speech (e.g. newspapers, books, television shows, films, artistic and educational materials) may be sued as an employee, not a citizen.

    So, Mr. Sailer, if you believe that a public/private distinction and the state action doctrine are important beyond cyberspace, then support as I do a Corporate Personhood Amendment to the Constitution.

    Of course, the crisis has been this Fake News mantra being peddled since 2016. It personifies the descent into modern anti-intellectualism. Bottom line? “Fake News” or “the media lies” is a farce, since it leads people to become patently ill-informed. How? Because all it takes is someone to utter that phrase, and the assumption becomes “true”. A person who desires to be informed delves into the matter by perusing several sources and by astutely investigating one’s own recency or confirmation biases. In this manner, the person is more likely to arrive at a more objective finding of the available facts.

    Unfortunately, anything that does not automatically fit into one’s crafted narrative as “fact” or “truth” becomes “Fake News”. So their mentality is no different than the “Jewish run media conglomerates who control the narrative” since they filter anything that dares to disrupt their world view.

    Stated in an another way, it is virtually impossible to engage in discourse with anyone who bitterly clings on this “Fake News” or “media lies” meme. Any fact brought in as an argument, they immediately attack the SOURCE, rather than the substance. Thus, it is easy to deny there is ANY evidence at all. This phenomenon has has reached a critical mass at our point in world history. Unfortunately, this increasingly leads more people to become ignorant by facilitating echo chambers and confirmation bias.

    Whether or not you care to NOTICE, Mr. Sailer, you are part of the problem. As TGGP noted, “Steve, why are you tweeting out links you haven’t even read? I suppose twitter has lower standards than your blog, but one would hope you’re engaging in at least a minimum of curation”.

  33. Travis says:

    The left has been eroding the first amendment for decades. First came Hate crime legislation , which criminalized speech against the protected classes. Then came campaign finance reform, which criminalized political speech. In 2002, Congress banned broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of an election . In short, in America, it is now legal for the government to control and ban political speech and participation.

  34. Corvinus says:

    “It encompasses the mass distortion of truth and overwhelming waves of speech from extremists that smear and distract.”

    Is this one of your Bil Keane “Not Me” moments, Mr. Sailer?

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @D. K.
  35. Michael S says:

    Well, if 1A isn’t important anymore, then I see no reason to keep Section 230 around either. Or to let the lamestream media keep publishing its fake polls. Bring on the gestapo, I say!

  36. Ragno says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Some of us called this a while back, whenever some well-meaning “Democrats R the real racists” types would begin mourning the lack of any First Amendment firebrands like Wm Kunstler: do not mistake Constitutional second-story men like Kunstler for “First Amendment firebrands”. People will say and profess things they don’t actually believe when they’re locked out of political power and trying to jimmy their way in; it’s a whole different story once they’re inside.

    And once they’ve booby-trapped all the entrances so that no one can replicate their own duplicity and trickeration; well…….that’s when you learn what they really and truly believe – when it’s safe for them to finally stop lying. Oddly enough, given their levels of open contempt for the people now locked out of power, you’d almost swear they’ve been blaming you for their own dishonesty the entire time. Which, of course, they are.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
  37. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad

    The United States are not a boat that you can sail to another port. They cannot be moved an inch so the only way to effect your plan is to fight for territory.

    Do you want another Civil War? What are the borders of the new White States of America? How much “exchange of population” will be needed? How do the White States of America function as an international pariah like South Africa? Without most of the college educated population, which would pick the other side?

    Are you nuts? Muddling thru with the current situation, as shitty as it is, is a thousand times better than war. 2% of the US population died in the last Civil War – this would be more than 6 million people today. And not senior citizens in nursing homes but young healthy people.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Disagree: BenKenobi
    • LOL: 3g4me
  38. Charles says:

    And speaking of Judge Bazelon…the book “Supermob” gives some details of his corrupt professional life; his career is a testament to the profitability of organized crime associations (as long as you yourself can remain behind the scenes).

    • Replies: @fnn
  39. anon[124] • Disclaimer says:

    There’s a tiny germ plasm of truth in that NYT Juche – not much, just about a nucleotide full. The first amendment is crap. No country in the world would adopt it now.

    The only worthwhile provision in it is, “If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house,” oh wait, that’s that other primitive obsolete blivet, the Code of Hammurabi, which you might as well be talking about instead, they’re equally N/A in American life today.

    Face it, all you’ve got is Article 19 and General Comment 34 – and that’s all you need. It beats hell out of your shit-crap constitutional freedom of the press, for several reasons ignoramus judges do not know.

    First, because Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression, not freedom of the press. There’s no room for that CIA chiseling, “Well, we decided he’s not a publisher, he’s just some Aussie sperg so he don’t get those rights, we’re gonna torture him to death.” Second, because it guarantees not just your freedom of expression but your freedom to seek and obtain information. Third, because government classification bullshit is tightly restricted. Fourth, because the government is committed not just to respect your right in its own actions, but to protect your right from assholes like Zuck and Gates and Dorsey. Fifth, because your other civil and political rights reinforce Article 19. The government can’t pick and choose your rights to coerce your free expression like, “You don’t wanna talk? OK shemale, we’re gonna bill you 1000 bucks a day till you rat out the sperg.” The coerced confessions of “plea bargaining” are illegal under Article 14§g. Sixth, because you can go over your bullshit government’s head to the world if they try to weasel out of their binding free-speech commitments. You can go to the Human Rights Council, the IACHR, or the HRC though NGOs.

    NYT hacks are picked for their blithe ignorance of this bedrock law of the civilized world. In fact most of them are Zionazis, sworn enemies of all these rights cause they think rights are only for Izzie Jews.

    What possessed you to look at the NYT anyway? Was it stuck on a hook in some outhouse so you could wipe your ass?

    https://wilmap.law.stanford.edu/entries/general-comment-no-34-article-19-international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  40. J1234 says:
    @TelfoedJohn

    I’m waiting for that segment to be banned or censored by the elites, too. Or any reference to ethnic heritage or background.

    What the Bill of Rights is really guarding against is pretext used by the government against the people. Righteous excuses for oppression have been around as long as…oppression.

  41. pirelli says:

    The conspiracy theories, the lies, the distortions, the overwhelming amount of information, the anger encoded in it — these all serve to create chaos and confusion and make people, even nonpartisans, exhausted, skeptical and cynical about politics.

    Free speech is exhausting. Why elbow your way through a boisterous marketplace of ideas when you could instead have the right ideas beamed directly into your home? Sunlight isn’t the best disinfectant; it just makes you sleepy.

    The spewing of falsehoods isn’t meant to win any battle of ideas. Its goal is to prevent the actual battle from being fought, by causing us to simply give up.

    Father Merrin: “I think that the point is to make us despair, to see ourselves as…animal and ugly. To make us reject the possibility that God could love us.”

    A working paper from the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard released early this month found that effective disinformation campaigns are often an “elite-driven, mass-media led process” in which “social media played only a secondary and supportive role.”

    She then cites Fox News and Rush Limbaugh as examples, but of course there’s no mention of that other elite-driven, mass-media led disinformation campaign, Black Lives Matter, which has produced a genuine mass psychosis in this country on a scale unrivaled by any other social movement since the 1960s.

  42. Every. Single. Time.

    It actually gets boring to check. Not exactly two percent of the time, is it?

  43. Aardvark says:
    @Hibernian

    The legislature and the judiciary on various levels have contrived legal overrides to various aspects of the constitution and the law.
    I’m sure someone more astute about legal issues than I could generate a longer list, but here are some:

    The government has a “compelling” interest to ignore/override x…
    The court rules that a party lacks standing to bring a judicial challenge.
    Asset forfeiture laws and no knock warrants circumvent the need for presenting a warrant and making a clear case in court.
    The legislature makes laws like RICO statutes which only require a preponderance of evidence rather than presenting the actual evidence.
    It is not a case of prosecutorial misconduct for any of:
    The prosecutor suborns perjury.
    The prosecutor and the judge conspire as to the outcome of the case.
    The prosecutor submits evidence in secret.
    The prosecutor or judge withhold or suppress exculpatory evidence.
    When the prosecutor can’t win a case it resorts to using pithy laws like mail fraud and perjury entrapment.
    The prosecutor convenes a grand jury more than once to get an indictment.

    I could go on and on myself but I have a feeling we get the message.
    The legislative and judicial environment has been so corrupt for so long that the constitution was essentially a dead letter at least 120 years ago, they just managed to keep the illusion alive.

  44. anon[316] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Muddling thru with the current situation, as shitty as it is, is a thousand times better than war. 2% of the US population died in the last Civil War – this would be more than 6 million people today.

    Muddling through means we will have a government here much like the one in China, or Mexico under the PRI. I would chose civil war over that even if it means more than 6 million dead.
    And consider – what if we win?
    All 50 states remain together. All illegal aliens can be deported. The minoritarians will be guilty of treason and can be executed or deported on those grounds. We can deport criminals as well, which would remove a sizeable percentage of the black population.
    War makes all things possible.

  45. “A torrent of propaganda, lies and conspiracy theories has weaponized the First Amendment.”

    They ALWAYS project. Whatever they accuse us of, they’re doing it.

  46. Whiskey says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Yes but …

    Everything you say us true.

    But we are heading for race based civil war anyways.

    Young White women are stupid. They are cheerleading you and him fight.

    Blacks with seventy years of White grovelling and surrender think they can push things with no limits of comeback.

    Non black immigrants mainly Indian think we are all pushovers like lower castes back home.

    Corporate America dreams of forced labor camps with no cost high IQ labor here. No transport costs.

    Violent Civil war us now one. President Harris will kick it off.

    Chekhov s gun on the table was always going to be fired, in Act 3

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  47. Liza says:
    @Hibernian

    A property owner in a Western state sued the Fed Gov because Federal LEOs had camped out on their property.

    I don’t recall that either, but maybe it was in the category of the cops in an emergency (?) commandeering a privately owned vehicle when their own was useless or somehow unavailable and so they had to “borrow” someone else’s whether they liked it or not. I found this on the interwebz, a quote from Live and Let Die:

    Sheriff J.W. Pepper : By the powers INvested IN ME by *this parish*, I hereby do commandeer this vehicle and all those persons within!

    LOL. It’s not just in films from what I read – so, yes, they can take your car and I imagine they can squat on your land if they are staking out “bad” people.

  48. MB says: • Website
    @Diversity Heretic

    What genuine, right-thinking American, after all, could possibly object to having soldiers quartered in their home?

    They gonna be deliverin’ the free vaccine.

    So hush little baby, don’t you cry.
    The catfish are jumping,
    And the cotton is high.

  49. MB says: • Website
    @Mr McKenna

    There’s more to that Bill of Rights that racist white men drew up back in prehistory.

    It was supposed to be the Bill of White Privilege, but Jefferson and a few of the others got together and said, “Nah, that’s not who we are”.

    • LOL: HammerJack
  50. Rosie says:
    @Jack D

    Are you nuts? Muddling thru with the current situation, as shitty as it is, is a thousand times better than war.

    This is precisely the short-sighted cowardice that tyrannical elites depend on to effecuate their plan of death by a thousand cuts.

    The Bill of Rights is the only thing that inspires what little I have left of patriotic sentence towards these here You Knighted States of America.

    I hate to see you act in accordance with the stereotype, Jack.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  51. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    As the rest of us immediately realized, that whole paragraph is a verbatim quote from Ms. Bazelon’s article, dumb fuck.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  52. MB says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    A long time ago/on becoming an adult, it became apparent to me that the mainscream media, more often than not, didn’t tell you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    If not that it wasn’t what they told you, but what they didn’t tell you. IOW the rest of the story.

    Of course, it didn’t help that a big money lesbian feminist abortion clinic moved into town two blocks from where I lived. I became aware of it for the first time due to the anti Reagan protests that were staged in front of it.

    IOW while it might be news to you, the fake news has been fake news/propaganda for a lot longer than Fakebook and Dimwitter.

    That is not to say, that the latter two don’t need to choose or be forced to choose between being protected as public utilities and obligated to print all, or become genuine private market entities without sweetheart deals/connections to the govt.

  53. @TelfoedJohn

    Recently discovered the surging popularity of the “Fat Acceptance” and “Health at Every Size” movements.

    Basically decided being healthy weight is white cis hetero blah blah blah normative and that being 600 pounds and bed ridden is beautiful and just as healthy as being athletic. It’s “fatphobic” that people think morbidly obese women are unattractive, it’s medical oppression that doctors tell people to lose weight, healthy weight is a eurocentric social construct… you get the idea. Seems fringe but you’re starting to see this go really mainstream with all the gross fat broads in ads now.

    Standard issue degeneracy, causing a good number of (particularly) impressionable young white women to actively destroy their bodies, fail to form families, fail to have children, divorce, make themselves ugly… the whole movement just makes the world that much less beautiful, sane, and functional.

    Didn’t even NEED to smash early life to see who has developed and promoted this ideology. Current year bonus though… prominent author of the fat acceptance bible “Health at Every Size” Linda Bacon is now Lindo Bacon. Double funny choice of crypsis name though.

    I’ll be honest, every so often I wonder if I’m being uncharitable to our middle eastern friends and consider if maybe those fine fellows over at the ADL have a point sometimes… etc. But then five minutes later another random reminder of what they inevitably sow into the world our children have to live in.

  54. @Corvinus

    True, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in a unanimous opinion in 2017 that social media platforms are most critical for the exchange of information and ideas in our society today. That is why liberals and conservatives alike are thinking long and hard to ensure equal and fair access to social media platforms, even if ideas are unpopular or controversial. Regardless, the fact remains that we as American citizens do NOT have constitutional protections to air our views on any social media platform without being subject to censorship.

    Maybe, but as the regnant social media/search platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Google) continue to censor and ‘curate’ legal content (i.e. operate as publishers), they will likely be subject to elimination of immunity from content lawsuits (libel, etc.) and may end up smacked down and obliterated like Gawker Media was. Will Zuckerberg and Dorsey, etc. think that makes for good shareholder value?

  55. Corvinus says:
    @D. K.

    “As the rest of us immediately realized, that whole paragraph is a verbatim quote from Ms. Bazelon’s article, dumb fuck.”

    Regardless, the point still stands. You do realize the hypocrisy on his part, right? Then again, you have blinders on, so no.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  56. This cuts both ways. Trump has complained bitterly about the networks using the free public airwaves to spread disinformation. Which they unquestionably have. That issue seems to actually get him more agitated than FB and Twitter censorship, which he realizes he can do little about, as they are private companies.

    Per the FCC: “The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news…”

    • Troll: Corvinus
  57. M_Young says:

    “the Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law at Yale Law School”

    LOL. Is that a real job?

  58. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    “. . . [H]ypocrisy?” Where has Sailer spoken out in favor of censorship, a la Ms. Bazelon, dumb fuck?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  59. Stan says:

    When Jews are outside the Establishment, free speech is good. When Jews are part of the Establishment, free speech is bad.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  60. Corvinus says:
    @D. K.

    “Where has Sailer spoken out in favor of censorship, a la Ms. Bazelon, dumb fuck?”

    I never said that directly or indirectly. Rather, I am remarking how some of Mr. Sailer’s narratives resemble this remark–“It encompasses the mass distortion of truth and overwhelming waves of speech from extremists that smear and distract.”

    Since you a smart (white) man, I’ll let you figure out the hypocrisy part. Oh, and keep swearing at me, that really is an effective way to get your message across. It’s what the darkies and Jews do, or so I’ve been told.

  61. “It encompasses the mass distortion of truth and overwhelming waves of speech from extremists that smear and distract.” In other words, the ruling class wishes to be the only ones permitted mass distortions of truth.

    Tocqueville–It is an axiom of political science in the United States that the only means of neutralizing the effects of newspapers is to multiply their numbers. I cannot imagine why such a self-evident truth should have not have become more commonly held in Europe.

  62. @Stan

    ‘When Jews are outside the Establishment, free speech is good. When Jews are part of the Establishment, free speech is bad.’

    I’ll think about this some more — but you may have hit the nail on the head.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  63. @Hibernian

    This one actually came up a few years back. A property owner in a Western state sued the Fed Gov because Federal LEOs had camped out on their property. They lost. I don’t remember the reasoning or the level at which the case was decided.

    If they were cops ie. not soldiers (but merely civilian law enforcement personnel), and they were engaged in the discharge of their duties (rather than seeking shelter for the purpose of “quartering”), then it’s not likely the 3rd Amendment would be seen as relevant here. I still say they should need the landowner’s permission (or a warrant), but not for 3rd Amendment-related reasons.

  64. @Rosie

    ‘This is precisely the short-sighted cowardice that tyrannical elites depend on to effecuate their plan of death by a thousand cuts.

    ‘The Bill of Rights is the only thing that inspires what little I have left of patriotic sentence towards these here You Knighted States of America.

    ‘I hate to see you act in accordance with the stereotype, Jack.’

    I’m getting this image of Rosie of Arc setting out to see the Dauphin crowned in the cathedral in Rheims.

    …I mean this in a good way.

    • LOL: Rosie
  65. Wilkey says:

    The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation

    The “Age of Disinformation” began when humans first came down from the trees and developed language. It will continue until the sun turns our planet into a hot lump of coal.

    • Agree: Liza
    • Replies: @Known Fact
  66. @Jack D

    The United States are not a boat that you can sail to another port. They cannot be moved an inch so the only way to effect your plan is to fight for territory.

    Correct.

    Do you want another Civil War?

    Conscious “want” has little to do with it:

    Think of war happening as more of a math equation, or a chemical reaction.

    What are the borders …

    As they exist currently. Unless there is outwardly expanded macrophage action—

    … of the new White States of America?

    Ideally, it would be an America of Whites and a minority of ‘based’ non-White (or mixed) pro-Whites. If there turns out to be no such thing as the latter, AOW-only is fine.

    How much “exchange of population” will be needed?

    Sky’s the limit, Jack. (#288) Roger Cohen, for one, is down for some action. Are you not Ready For Some Football?

    How do the White States of America function as an international pariah like South Africa?

    Pariah? LOL. America tends to inspire aspirational copycat behavior. Other nations may also commit similar purges: i.e., contagious worldwide macrophage action.

    Without most of the college educated population, which would pick the other side?

    Will colleges matter if in smoking ruins? Food, fuel, arms, water, tactics and motivation (#165), etc. will be more important in a donnybrook.

    Muddling thru with the current situation, as shitty as it is, is a thousand times better than war.

    Isn’t that part of Steve’s repeated message to the instigating, scheming Roger Cohens of the world? It seems sadomasochists like Cohen (of which there are many) get bored when they should be grateful—with them it’s forever Eastern Standard Time.

    To quote Steve in different contexts, “Whaddya, whaddya.” *

    To quote me, “Plus ça change, plus Sailer même chose.”

    ———————————————————————————————

    * Is it just me, am I spelling “whaddya” wrong? I’ve searched “whaddya whaddya” and couldn’t find it in Steve’s comment history or his articles on Unz Review. Wtf—isn’t that phrase one of Steve’s standbys like “Who? Whom?”

    Whaddya’ll make of this? …

    https://www.unz.com/?s=whaddya&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=include&commenter=steve+sailer

    https://www.unz.com/?s=whaddya&Action=Search&ptype=isteve

    • Replies: @CJ
  67. the psychological shift from WASP ideas and concepts to jewish ideas and concepts is largely complete.

    most Americans now think in a very jewish way. they don’t even realize it.

    we call this finklethink.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
  68. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    They also have a reversed interpretation of “freedom of the press.” “Press” freedom of course means all citizens have the right to disseminate information/opinion. But they believe it means *only* The Press (capital “P”) has this right, and they should be completely unfettered in their right to access and distribute information, irrespective of concern for national security or personal privacy etc.

  69. But in the United States and other democracies, there is a different kind of threat, which may be doing more damage to the discourse about politics, news and science. It encompasses the mass distortion of truth and overwhelming waves of speech from extremists that smear and distract.

    These extremists … are they the government and their MSM lackies, or are we talking about the Deplorables?

  70. Emily herself is the Truman Capote Fellow…

    Gotta watch those Truman Capote fellows.

    …for Creative Writing and Law

    Is it such a good idea to mix creative writing and law? That’s how we got travesties like Obergefell and Roe.

  71. fnn says:
    @Charles

    I guess you know Ron Unz wrote a long piece about Judge Bazelon and the Chicago Outfit last year:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-power-of-organized-crime/

    How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived Happily Ever After as America’s Most Respected Civil Libertarian Federal Appellate Court Judge

    • Replies: @Charles
  72. @william munny

    The average American loves having freedom of speech, however they misunderstand it.

    Yeah, they misunderstand it all right.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
  73. @HammerJack

    That was supposed to read: “Yeah, they misunderstand it all right. They support free speech “for me and for everyone who agrees with me.”

    Something’s wrong with the edit function, or with my phone, or both.

  74. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    Stick it up your well-worn asshole, and then blow it out of your bulbous nose, dumb fuck. You are far and away the most tedious troll on this entire site; adding “prissy” to your tiresome repertoire does not improve anyone’s view of your schtick.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  75. @Ragno

    do not mistake Constitutional second-story men like Kunstler for “First Amendment firebrands”. People will say and profess things they don’t actually believe when they’re locked out of political power and trying to jimmy their way in; it’s a whole different story once they’re inside.

    That is very well put. The argument against free speech is unchanging and eternal:

    The good people in power know the right thing to do. But bad people keep persuading the masses with their bad ideas. If we can just stop the masses from hearing the bad ideas, then they will only know to do the right things. And everyone will be happy.

    The Bazelons of the world always discover this argument when they are in power and then argue the opposite when they are out of power. It is the most predictable and uninteresting opinion ever.

  76. Fox says:
    @Kent Nationalist

    And they don’t comprehend the self-contradiction, absurdity and hypocrisy of their position. It’s perfectly logical to them to at the same time hold true something and its opposite.
    It’s a stance with no future, but unfortunately not only for them but for everyone else.
    There will be a Ragnarök and a new beginning will have to be made.

  77. @Mr McKenna

    “smear and distract” are the exact words Biden used the other day when he waived off a reporter who had the nerve to ask him about his Ukraine grift.

    Both words are great for politicians as they can apply to inconvenient facts that are entirely true.

  78. @Corvinus

    Oh my. Corvinus strikes again with a defense of big media and big tech because all those mouth breathing rightists don’t listen to him.

    I don’t think anyone is thinking very long and hard about individuals’ access to social media platforms, despite your assertion. Nobody outside fringe thinkers on the right. Those Fringe on the left like Antifa are defended as being an idea, nonexistent, or simply the act of punching Nazis like my grandaddy did in ‘44. Mainstream conservatives are taking money from corporations and defend those same corporations, so Tea Partier Mike Lee can promote the expansion of work visas and National Review can say Google and all corporations are people too.

    The willingness of media to completely throttle real news stories is a problem. Your calling out “Fake News!” like a bag lady with Tourette’s does not hide that fact.

    I’m continually astounded that you remain on this site. I’ve come to the conclusion that you don’t get real debate with your lefty friends so come here To get free speech even as you denounce free speech. The only other conclusion I can come up with is that you have a sexual fetish insulting right wingers and this allows you to get it up.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @Corvinus
    , @Ragno
  79. @Jack D

    Jack, i’ve been through this with you before, so as quickly as i can, while still hitting it:

    1) Saying/threatening separation is itself a very useful tool.

    “Separation” outlines who is actually parasitic upon whom, ergo exposing the minoritarian big lie. Minoritarians bleat “whitey is oppressing us”. But if that is true … then wouldn’t you want them to leave? To leave you alone? Why not?

    Saying “ok, let’s just separate” exposes the reality that Blue America is dependent/parasitic on Red America. (I hate the swapped colors, but they are what they are.) Minoritarian America is parasitic on Deplorable America.

    Blue/Minoritarian America is a high low coalition–of parasites. Elite “blue America”–finance, academia, government, media, law, etc.–exists because there is this huge productive white gentile America out there for it to exist on top of. And of course all the un-elite blue America positions–social worker, HR drone, school lunch lady, DMV clerk, welfare recipient, criminal … are also dependent upon red America waking up in the morning and doing the materially productive labor–including the “labor” of being neighborly and law abiding–that keeps America running.

    “Red America” leaves … Blue America is suddenly hacking up a pie that just shrunk 75%. A lot of financiers and social workers and lawyers and teachers and “diversity consultants” and “gender studies professors” suddenly must learn to farm, or fix cars or or do construction (though the mad dash out of blue America might mitigate that last one) or be prison guards for the other part of blue America.

    2) Red wins the split: White people are whiter than you think.

    Jack you have got some real *deep* confusion about realities here:

    How do the White States of America function as an international pariah like South Africa? Without most of the college educated population, which would pick the other side?

    First off the Deplorable America won’t be a pariah. It’s ok to be a “deplorable”. In fact it is normal. It is Jewish minoritarianism that is whack-a-doodle nonsense. Even as a white ethnostate–which is not the division–would be normal. The Chinese have a Han ethnostate. The Russians have an ethnostate. That’s normality. But also … who cares? Deplorable America can take care of itself. America developed under high tariffs. In capability–resource base–it’s perhaps the most self-sufficient place on earth.

    You are also confused about how the split would play out. It’s true college educated whites are the locus of “good white”-hood. But which college educated whites? The ones we majority lose are the “gender studies” degrees, the anthropologists, the social workers, the English majors … on through to the lawyers. When you’ve gotten to the natural sciences we’re going to do fined. When you over at petroleum engineering … we’re hardly losing anyone. The general pattern is the harder, the more practical, the more productive–team Red.

    (And the IQ break is like this as well. Generally the more Democratic voting the degree, the dumber it’s graduates. Not 100%, but that’s the general trend line.)

    Finally, you’re confused about how this would break. For instance there are a lot of Democrat girls. The Democrats promise them goodies. Promise to take care of them … even if a husband doesn’t show up. The Democrats say nice things, they are the establishment, have the media, control the narrative and women are much more narrative compliant. But imagine we’re actually have a vote–a split. A lot of girls who might parrot, or at least vote for, minoritarian idiocy–“refugees welcome”, “wall are mean”, “police are structurally racist”–will actually opt to throw in with the boys who studied engineering and hit the gym. It’s nice to be nice–and eat Thai food occasionally–but they actually want to live in white America, not “rainbow”.

    Lots of other “good whites” will make the same sort of calculation. Even some couple with their stupid BLM yard signs will have their little private conversations and somehow–without admitting it–decide they’d really rather live with a lot of white people.

    Even a lot of Jews–the very people who cooked up this minoritarian disaster and overwhelmingly vote blue–will go with the Deplorables. Jews have been sticking themselves amongst–while refusing to integrate with–the deplorable gentiles for 1000 years to make a buck. That’s their bread and butter. Sure the true believers will go with blue America. But a huge number will be smart enough to realize that they have their comfy sinecure precisely *because* of the deplorables. Deplorable America is going to have academics and lawyers and financiers and bureaucrats and have fewer of those out of the gate–opportunity $$$!

    If a split comes, the split is going to be much more Red than the voting. Ideally we’d have a screen on past voting and keep a bunch of these people out!

    3) War isn’t required … but we win.

    If it ever came to war–we’d win. The Democrats are trying to diversify the armed services and the police to make it more difficult. But the basic reality on the ground is clear. If push came to shove the deplorables are better armed and have more moxie and will have more “fighting spirit”.

    We’d be fighting to survive as a people. They’d be fighting to enslave us to their minoritarian project. Media, academia, even on the streets they are willing to scream. But are they willing to fight–and die in numbers?–to enslave us to their project.

    4) The future is long.

    War is bad. Even disruption is bad. But … the future is long.

    People make war, tolerate loss and deprivation in order to have a better future tomorrow and the next day for themselves, their children, their posterity.

    • Agree: BenKenobi, Mark G.
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  80. @AnotherDad

    … so as quickly as i can, while still hitting it:

    Multitasking! How does the laptop/tablet not fall off Mrs. AD’s back? Velcro chest rig?

  81. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jack D

    We’re not interested in war. See Trotsky for the rest.

  82. Mr. Anon says:
    @Corvinus

    I second what commenter D.K. said. And if there are any more profanities to add to it, I would add them as well, you moron.

  83. Hibernian says:
    @res

    I’m not sure. I remember Nevada as the state, but I thought the LEOs were Federal, and that they’d camped outdoors on the property, rather than taking up positions within the home, unless “home” means the house and curtilage, not the house alone..

  84. @John Milton’s Ghost

    He can’t get it up……but it’s flattering of you to think so.

  85. @Colin Wright

    ‘When Jews are outside the Establishment, free speech is good. When Jews are part of the Establishment, free speech is bad.’

    I’ll think about this some more — but you may have hit the nail on the head.

    I thought about it some more.

    Nope: doesn’t work. Both generations of Bazelons were well within the era of Jewish power. Jews were already ‘the establishment’ when Bazelon Senior was in his heyday.

    • Replies: @West reanimator
  86. MBlanc46 says:

    She would think that, wouldn’t she?

  87. dfordoom says: • Website
    @william munny

    but I am skeptical about their chances. The average American loves having freedom of speech, however they misunderstand it.

    People like having freedom of speech, they just don’t want people who disagree with them to have freedom of speech.

    It’s a generational thing. Belief in genuine freedom of speech is a Boomer thing. And we all know the Boomers are wrong about everything. If Boomers believe in it it must be bad.

    Freedom of speech is so outdated and old-fashioned. We’ve moved on. It’s like privacy, another weird silly Boomer idea.

  88. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon

    First, because Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression, not freedom of the press.

    It is an important distinction. You’re right to point it out.

  89. @AnotherDad

    “The plain reality: 1880 has been a lot more damaging than 1619”.

    Yes, Yes! That is what I imagine myself telling my students in my Introduction to American History. 1880, the beginning of the admission of the Russian Jew to the US. Much more important to the future than 1865, or even 1964 and 1965 since there would have been neither without 1880. And then there was 1917, 1941, 2003…But I think I hear Antifa at the classroom door…

  90. @AndrewR

    Funny, I am watching the Chicago 7 Netflix movie as I type this.

    Borat as Abbie Hoffman. Perfect.

  91. Anonymous[328] • Disclaimer says:
    @Whiskey

    The average age of whites is pushing 50. You don’t fight a war with a bunch of geezers. The window for that has passed.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  92. @Colin Wright

    Nope: doesn’t work. Both generations of Bazelons were well within the era of Jewish power. Jews were already ‘the establishment’ when Bazelon Senior was in his heyday.

    David Bazelon born in 1909 and Emily Bazelon born 1971 grew up in completely different Americas.

    The former used his judicial power to help destroy the America he was born into. The latter is trying to preserve the JRA she inherited.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  93. Charles says:
    @fnn

    You’re correct – Ron Unz pointed me to the book. An internet seller had the HC, basically new edition for $30. I said in a comment not long ago that the best thing about the UR is its collection of books Ron has made available to us.

  94. Corvinus says:
    @John Milton’s Ghost

    “Corvinus strikes again with a defense of big media and big tech…”

    LOL. To the contrary, my support of the Corporate Personhood Amendment demonstrates the need to rein them in. But the fact remains that they are not under the purview of the First Amendment as private entities.

    “I don’t think anyone is thinking very long and hard about individuals’ access to social media platforms, despite your assertion.”

    To the contrary…

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/esade/2020/02/10/should-social-media-platforms-be-regulated/#670c761f3370

    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47135058

    https://theconversation.com/its-time-for-a-new-way-to-regulate-social-media-platforms-109413

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1783591719847545

    “The willingness of media to completely throttle real news stories is a problem.”

    Depend upon what constitutes “real news stories”. Are they based on actual facts, or fear mongering?

    “Your calling out “Fake News!” like a bag lady with Tourette’s does not hide that fact.”

    The fact of the matter is that this phenomenon is a threat to intellectual thought and discourse, as evidence by some posters here on this fine blog who outright dismiss stories that counter their prescribed narrative. It’s confirmation bias personified.

    I’m continually astounded that you remain on this site.

    “I’ve come to the conclusion that you don’t get real debate with your lefty friends so come here To get free speech even as you denounce free speech.

    To the contrary, I debate here and other places, as well as with my family and friends who hold a wide range of viewpoints. Furthermore, I appreciate your strawman!

    “The only other conclusion I can come up with is that you have a sexual fetish insulting right wingers and this allows you to get it up.”

    LOL, this statement proves my point. You make up something and state it to be true. In that way, you do not have to critically think. It’s a sickness. Seek help.

  95. @Wilkey

    In liberal minds the Age of Disinformation began with Rush Limbaugh’s ascent to fame, and intensified when the internet enabled upstart websites such as Unz or troglodyte papers like the NY Post to nimbly pester and sometimes outflank the establishment media.

  96. @prime noticer

    It’s also been a damaging shift from masculine to feminine psychology

  97. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    The average age of whites is pushing 50. You don’t fight a war with a bunch of geezers. The window for that has passed.

    And young whites are joining antifa.

  98. Richard B says:
    @Luigi

    A democracy, is a top down, mob rule, elitist definition of communism.

    That’s an excellent definition of Absolute Democracy. But, that’s not the only kind of Democracy there is. There’s also Free Democracy.

    Absolute Democracy = Popular Government and Personal Freedom.
    Free Democracy = A balance between Popular Will and Individual Rights.

    It’s true that Absolute Democracy levels down to mediocrity. It leads to feeble, ineffecient and corrupt rule and a corresponding revolt of the masses, where both the mob and their leaders believe they have a monopoly on virtue and common sense. Like what we have now.

    It’s also true that Free Democracy is not only something completely different, but much more difficult to achieve exactly because it’s a perilous balance between popular will and individual rights. It’s an attempt to create a civilized society through the guarantee of civil liberties.

    In a Free Democracy there’s only Intellectual Privilege granted to all. Not racial privilege granted only to the beneficiaries of Identity Politics.

    This explains why Free Democracy could only exist in the USA if someone like Peter Brimelow controlled its immigration policy. But he doesn’t. And now we’re back to your excellent definition of Absolute Democracy.

  99. Ragno says:
    @John Milton’s Ghost

    I’m continually astounded that you remain on this site. I’ve come to the conclusion that you don’t get real debate with your lefty friends so come here To get free speech even as you denounce free speech. The only other conclusion I can come up with is that you have a sexual fetish insulting right wingers and this allows you to get it up.

    My money’s on (2).

    Guys like Corvinus can be found anywhere they still allow reader comments. Whenever you see a hundred people registering their opinion, but one left-wing mosquito (though perhaps “bedbug” is the more accurate term) persistently buzzing around a few dozen times, taking it upon himself to bait (or “correct”) any and everyone refusing to guzzle the MSM Kool-Aid….there goes a Corvinus. (And when such sites announce they are discontinuing all user comments, it’s usually because that selfsame buzzing twat, his work not yet done, has taken the time to contact the site’s PTB to bitterly complain that “neo-Nazis” keep peddling “hate” in the comments section, making sure that any response short of nuking the vox populi will be remembered, and acted upon, by his less-principled comrades who never forget or forgive.)

    Me? I’d permaban any such character the moment they began to make themselves nuisances. The lesson nobody ever seems to learn is a little law & order, administered early & harshly, saves everyone a lot of profuse bleeding later on. Of course, antifa/BLM could never have gone beyond footnote status in America had so many nominal authority figures not been cheering them on from their soundproof corner offices, where they could cling to whatever deniability was required for them to keep those corner offices.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Corvinus
  100. @Verymuchalive

    In America 90% of media outlets are owned by 5 conglomerates.

    We must break them up.

  101. Art Deco says:
    @West reanimator

    The former used his judicial power to help destroy the America he was born into. The latter is trying to preserve the JRA she inherited.

    The America he was born into was largely reconstituted consequent to the Depression and the war. He wasn’t appointed to the federal bench until 1949. Little doubt Bazelon favored and promoted many wretched things during his years on the bench, but the cause he was primarily associated with was manufacturing excuses to avoid punishing criminals.

  102. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Ragno

    Me? I’d permaban any such character the moment they began to make themselves nuisances.

    If he upsets you that much you could always just learn to use the Commenters To Ignore button.

  103. @Corvinus

    Since you a smart (white) man, I’ll let you figure out the hypocrisy part.

    Well, you’re the poster, so you should be telling us what the hypocrisy part is, or else why bother posting in the first place?

    Oh, and keep swearing at me, that really is an effective way to get your message across.

    D.K’s message got across perfectly clear; you’re full of shit and he called you out on it. Put this one in the loss column for you; you truly embarrassed yourself.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  104. Corvinus says:
    @ScarletNumber

    “D.K’s message got across perfectly clear; you’re full of shit and he called you out on it.”

    No, all he did was employ ad hominem. That is not a cogent argument as mandated in discourse.

    “Put this one in the loss column for you; you truly embarrassed yourself.”

    Thanks for your projection.

  105. Corvinus says:
    @Ragno

    “Guys like Corvinus can be found anywhere they still allow reader comments”.

    You mean those who have alternative points of view which make you feel uncomfortable.

    “Whenever you see a hundred people registering their opinion, but one left-wing mosquito (though perhaps “bedbug” is the more accurate term) persistently buzzing around a few dozen times, taking it upon himself to bait (or “correct”) any and everyone refusing to guzzle the MSM Kool-Aid….there goes a Corvinus.”

    No, I’m no “left winger”, just a married white man with children who makes his own decisions about race and culture.

    “(And when such sites announce they are discontinuing all user comments, it’s usually because…”

    They are an echo chamber and only prefer one particular point of view. Perhaps you work for Twitter?

    “The lesson nobody ever seems to learn is a little law & order, administered early & harshly, saves everyone a lot of profuse bleeding later on.”

    And, yet, another Internet Armchair Warrior screams to be heard.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS