This is actually fairly clever. I am not sure how impactful it will be, but it decidedly sends a message to the authoritarians—yes,I’m aware of the irony, or perhaps the hypocrisy, depending on how you see it—reinforcing Vance’s message to Europe. Whether it changes their behavior much or at all, this drum needs to be beaten until, well, forever.
Certainly sends an authoritarian message to countries that may have different standards for moderation of content. America and our social media companies know best even if we are rare in the Free World to not be members of the International Criminal Court (ICC), established to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. There's no paragon of virtue quite like a self-defined paragon of virtue.
The problem is that their moderation of content isn’t contained within their borders. The EU has a problem with overreach. I own a business in the USA that advertises online. One advertiser recently asked for my company’s tax ID and bank account information as part of DSA compliance. What for? So they can fine me because they think something in my online ad doesn’t comply with their “online safe spaces” BS and then reach into my account and take the fine? I think not. Too broad and nebulous for my little brain.
Yes, you are right about the overreach. It's called the "Brussels effect": when such a large consumer market as the EU is tighly regulated, the norms imposed tend to difuse globally. And that's the very reason why the Blob has been trying for over 10 years to weaponize the EU regulatory authority to censor speech in the U.S.
Looks like a-holes at both ends. Don't think this take away their visas thing is going to fix anything. That advertiser sounds sketchy, if you ask me, but you didn't. Good luck with overseas business as Trump splashes his mental bath water on everyone's baby.
I was on X last evening and voiced my opinion of a certain political hack in the Canadian Liberal Party and immediately a warning outline in red said I could not post that comment by ‘order’ of the Canadian Government. Not sure if I worded that correctly, I was so shocked I could hardly comprehend what had just happened. Going to test it out some more today.
I'd be a lot happier about this if it didn't come with the unspoken deal that they in turn are allowed to censor our own institutions and foreign students here legally on visas on behalf of a foreign nation. If this keeps up, every administration that comes in will have to hand out a new handbook about what is and is not permissible to champion because neither one really wants to give up the weapon of censorship.
Why should students be here on behalf of a foreign nation? If they are students, they should be here to study. If they are here on behalf of a foreign nation, they are not really students.
They are not here on behalf of a foreign nation. They are here to study. That they have opinions on the side should not come as a surprise. This is the excuse I’ve been hearing for awhile. And somehow if they were protesting for Israel, I don’t think their presence would be an issue.
Actually, it is surprising that young people who subscribe to the “Great Satan” theory of America would want to study in what they view as an evil society. Oh, but they want to advocate for changes to improve America and steer it to the correct path? See my previous point.
Okay, let’s cut through this disingenuous BS. These students were basically protesting the university’s investment in Israel because of what is going on in Gaza. They came to the US to pay nearly $100,000 a year in tuition. Yeah, I think they might be entitled to suggest the university not invest the money they’re paying in tuition in a country that is dropping bombs on people like them. You can agree with them or not, but you and the Trump administration and all the Zionists/Israel supporters out there who are blurring the anti-semitism/anti-Israel line are being incredibly dishonest by denying what the issue really was.
And once again, if they were Israeli students over here, I suspect no one would have any problem with them advocating for Israel. In fact one of our big problems is the crowd of people in the US, including dual Israeli-US citizens, who put their allegiance to Israel above the welfare of their fellow US citizens, and I don’t see anyone of your ilk having any problem with that. It’s all good.
So this comes down to viewpoint discrimination, which was what was going on in the last administration, and you all were big mad about it. Where did that go?
Disingenuous BS? You mean like saying it’s only about disinvesting? Have you missed the calls for global intifada and “from the river to the sea”? Where are all the signs for Disinvest Now? Did they project Disinvest Now on buildings? No, it was All Glory to Our Martyrs.
"From the river to the sea" is protected speech, and, despite Rubio's decision to cancel student visas for people who oppose Israel's actions, students here on valid visas do share our rights to free speech.
Get over it.
I don't recall this much opposition to students protesting America, only Israel. Why is that, I wonder?
Okay, since you seem very ignorant, let's clear up some vocabulary. "Martyr" refers to anyone who has died in Gaza, including women and children. It may refer to members of Hamas, but it also refers to everyone else that Israel has dropped bombs on and killed, including the nine children of pediatrician who were killed while she was at work at the hospital, and she found out about it when the brought the bodies in. Those are also "martyrs."
"Intifada" much like "martyr" means many things. Yes, it can be violent. But it can also just mean protesting. When everyone was running around saying "take back America," what did that mean? Did it mean "vote" or did it mean January 6th on steroids?
I don't care what their slogans were. I care what they demanded of the university. What the hell does "Make America Great Again" mean? You don't know until you read the policy proposals. Now you're play the same game the people you claim to hate played.
As for "from the river to the sea," you need to finish that. What is "from the river to the sea"? If we're suggesting that Palestinians should be free "from the river to the sea," then I'm all in. If you're suggesting that they mean Palestine should exist "from the river to the sea" and you suggest that is a call for genocide, then you have a problem, and your problem is Bibi Netanyahu. He has also used the phrase "from the river to the sea" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V96T8rIkFc), and his military is now killing Palestinians by the droves. So if it's genocidal without the ability to inflict mass murder, then what is it with the ability to inflict mass murder.
I find it a bit hypocritical that you take the most generous interpretation for one group and the least generous for the other. I'd have thought that at least half the country would have learned not to do that being on the receiving end, but here we are.
Coming here and calling for Death to Jews, which is exactly what Free Palestine means, gets Americans killed. It means Free Palestine of Jews. Just stop demonizing people who believe Jews have a right to self determination in their ancestral homeland. That’s all Zionism means. When you demonize us, you encourage people to act on their death chants, as we saw last week.
They are not ALL calling for "Death to Jews," despite your rather imaginative interpretation.
And no, we will not stop demonizing Zionists.
Somehow their "right to self determination" seems to involve a breathtaking number of civilian deaths, as Israel repeatedly commits war crimes by bombing refugee camps, bombing aid workers, and withholding humanitarian aid.
Your lame attempts to blame us for some lunatic shooting random Jews or Israel supporters is laughable.
Glen Greenwald the other night said he has put out a call for any videos of anyone on any campus at all shouting "death to Jews." He hasn't gotten a single one. But even if you could find one, in any group you have the wingnuts.
And you realize that Zionism is only about a hundred years old and was for a long time consider a radical and heretical ideology by Jews themselves.
Did they not know about these “investments” before they decided to contribute an additional $100,000 to the university? It’s of vital importance to them, but nobody checked it out before they arrived? This is complete and total BS. We know why they are here.
Yes, we do. They are here to study, and while they were studying, Israel started bombing the crap out of women and children while pretending to "get Hamas," that's why percentage-wise there are more tunnels left than homes, because they were going after the tunnels *wink wink*. And so the students decided to get involved in already existing protests that they thought they could add credibility to being as they were from a different viewpoint. Smart people know that's why they were here. Reactionary people who worship at the feet of Israel and a group of radicals (every religion has them, though these seem strangely difficult to call out, when the radical Muslims are so very easy for you to call out and identify--I wonder why that is).
"They are not here on behalf of a foreign nation. They are here to study."
How do you know? How do you know that China, Iran, Venezuela, France or any other country didn't recruit and send spies and rabble rousers as students? You don't and I have no doubt it is happening. In fact, it has been shown numerous times that not only has that happened but they have also sent spies to infiltrate fed and state governments. Your supposition that everyone is innocent and just have thoughts is incredibly naïve.
Red herring introduced. Obviously "on behalf of" was not the correct phrase. Such word errors might need to be addressed in the upcoming handbook on what constitutes speech disliked by the reigning administration.
I think I see what you're saying, Lillia. In some sense, the prohibition on antisemitic discrimination (in terms of US domestic university funding) can overlap into suppression of legitimate free speech such as criticism of Israel being labeled as support for Hamas. It's that same slippery slope of "woke" where specifics start to count for everything (e.g. a misplaced pronoun means you're a Nazi). I see nothing wrong with the principle of vetting for real dangers such as violence, but as always it can be so easily abused as we have seen. Definitions become everything.
Lillia, I think you are saying something important here, but am confused by the wording of your first sentence. When you say ..."they in turn..", who is "they"? The EU is already trying to censor Americans both for what they say in Euro countries and for what they say in the U.S., (if I am understanding the situation correctly). Also confusing to me is the phrase "on behalf of a foreign nation." Are you referring to the Trump administration's attempts to deport foreign students who protest Israel's military actions in Palestine?
You have the right “they.” It seems the Trump administration wants an unspoken deal. They will on the one hand fight for free speech (for Americans and in general) and in return we’re supposed to overlook this one little exception.
Thanks for your clarification. I have multiple perspectives on how to combat the violations of free speech in the U.S. Most of these violations are being perpetrated by leftists and Democrats, and there has been little or no free speech or press, or academic freedom on campuses of top rated colleges for more than a decade. It is very difficult to construct strategies to oppose the leftist authoritarianism without engaging in behaviors that are also authoritarian, or could at least be so interpreted. One of the main criticisms I have of free speech activists such as Lukianoff is the absence of any proposals for how we can effectively defend our free speech based government from violent domestic authoritarians, of which the mass leftist movement is the most egregious. The idea that engaging in reasonable debate with adversaries is sufficient to protect free speech appears to me to be untenable at this point, just as reasoning with Nazis, Stalinists, etc. was useless.
The only way I've seen to stop this is to stop the fake media. If not for the fake media lying constantly to support whatever Dems do and say and denigrate whatever Repubs do and say, we would not have to fight authoritarianism. The media is tasked in the constitution, by getting freedoms under the 1A, to hold government...ALL OF GOVERNMENT...accountable. The Dem party is so horrid because the fake media helps them to be so.
The only way I can see to stop the fake media is to make them irrelevant. We can't have a government entity taking them to task, that leads to...well the fake media. The way I see to make them irrelevant is to stop watching, buying subscriptions, listening, reading everything from them. It would be great if some wealthy folks, not Musk, he's done enough, got together and founded an alternative information source with a cadre of great left and right JOURNALISTS in teams challenging each other to dig out all the facts and editors to ensure we see all the facts. Let the full weight of the facts stop the fake media.
I think your idea is excellent! Every Prog Dem I know gets her news from the Dem Party media. That is why these individuals who don't necessarily know each other are ramped up about the same "news" on the same days, and they all have the same take on whatever the "news" is.
The First A guarantees that we have a free press, not owned and directed by the government, but that only works if there are journalists and media companies that want to be free. For a lot of readers as well the emphasis is more on "we trust that source," than on the source's independence from the government machine. That is of course easier than having to dig through independent media to verify or debunk propaganda, but now we do have to do that because we don't have a source like you described above.
I think the answer lies in not allowing the umbrella of free speech protection to be extended into physical acts that interfere with others. Blocking access to buildings, taking over public spaces etc do not become free speech simply by shouting slogans or holding up signs while engaging in this behavior.
Let them publish any vile content they want. Let them try to persuade using only the force of their ideas. But do not give in to the idea that taking over public spaces is free speech. Only people who cannot persuade turn to physical intimidation tactics. No, you cannot stage a “protest” at Union Station. Doing so will result in arrest and prosecution.
I’m sorry if you feel your ideas are not getting enough public attention. Learn to be more persuasive, or get better ideas.
I absolutely agree! The fundamental responsibility of parents, teachers and whatever "adults" still exist in our society is to establish and enforce limits on behavior, for the protection of all involved, and for the growth of kids into well organized adults.
(I figured out how to "collapse" the sub-thread, open it in another window to read. The main thread is much smaller without it. HA!)
I read through this sub-thread, and just have an obvious comment that no one has mentioned.
- None of these "students" are actually what they appear to be, on many levels.
Harvard is part of the "Deep State", that engages in training "students" like the campus protestors. Many of the Universities are as well. The reason they have not been shut down until the Trump administration is that the "Deep State" is paying for these "protests".
Trump is trying to shut down this aspect of the "Deep State" that has been training undercover agents for decades.
I expect the world to settle down now that the money is drying up.
Thank you. I like listening to Tucker when he has a guest that interests me, which is rare. So I don't remember to check his show very often. But Benz is definitely of interest and I might have missed this if you hadn't posted it.
This is great as far as it goes. Now we just need to back off on our own censorship, i.e., deporting various foreign students for their speech, and applying the screws to anyone who dares to stray into anything critical of Israel.
This sounds like a giant win for, well for all of us, but specifically for the efforts of Public and Taibbi and Benz and certainly others I'm unaware of.
Thank you for your work to expose these dangers and for getting them to the attention of our new leadership.
So far, the implementation of these policies and the expression of them and publications (such as the State Dept. publication on Substack) I personally favor. The expressions and policies seem to be straightforward advocacy for the core values of freedom in our Bill of Rights. We will see how this develops. I hope it continues on a reasonable middle path of advocacy.
I see in comments that there is a big confusion between censorship and immigration. Prosecution for free speech is imposing fines or jail time. Denying or cancelling a visa isn't prosecution! Brazil and EU countries can deny entry to every foreigner whose speech they don't like. But they shouldn't be able to tell foreign companies how those operate on their own soil and threaten executives with arrest.
I see this as a win for Michael and all of Public. Some fearless REAL journalism being carried out by REAL journalists. This is what I voted for and this is why I subscribe.
This is a great start. Americans must have their free speech rights protected wherever they are and American companies need assurances that free speech will always prevail. Censorship of American companies by foreign governments ultimately results in censorship of all Americans.
YES! You foreigners attack OUR free speech? Then shove off! You and your censorship are not welcome here!
I voted for this!
This is an attempt to immunize the US against a mind virus. I applaud it but I fear it's a lost cause.
Rubio 2028
Vance Rubio 2029
This is actually fairly clever. I am not sure how impactful it will be, but it decidedly sends a message to the authoritarians—yes,I’m aware of the irony, or perhaps the hypocrisy, depending on how you see it—reinforcing Vance’s message to Europe. Whether it changes their behavior much or at all, this drum needs to be beaten until, well, forever.
Certainly sends an authoritarian message to countries that may have different standards for moderation of content. America and our social media companies know best even if we are rare in the Free World to not be members of the International Criminal Court (ICC), established to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. There's no paragon of virtue quite like a self-defined paragon of virtue.
The problem is that their moderation of content isn’t contained within their borders. The EU has a problem with overreach. I own a business in the USA that advertises online. One advertiser recently asked for my company’s tax ID and bank account information as part of DSA compliance. What for? So they can fine me because they think something in my online ad doesn’t comply with their “online safe spaces” BS and then reach into my account and take the fine? I think not. Too broad and nebulous for my little brain.
Yes, you are right about the overreach. It's called the "Brussels effect": when such a large consumer market as the EU is tighly regulated, the norms imposed tend to difuse globally. And that's the very reason why the Blob has been trying for over 10 years to weaponize the EU regulatory authority to censor speech in the U.S.
Looks like a-holes at both ends. Don't think this take away their visas thing is going to fix anything. That advertiser sounds sketchy, if you ask me, but you didn't. Good luck with overseas business as Trump splashes his mental bath water on everyone's baby.
This is the best policy idea from the department of state in recent history. Thanks to all who had a hand in it Marco
I was on X last evening and voiced my opinion of a certain political hack in the Canadian Liberal Party and immediately a warning outline in red said I could not post that comment by ‘order’ of the Canadian Government. Not sure if I worded that correctly, I was so shocked I could hardly comprehend what had just happened. Going to test it out some more today.
Would you share your handle so we can try re-posting your comment?
FAFO in action
I'd be a lot happier about this if it didn't come with the unspoken deal that they in turn are allowed to censor our own institutions and foreign students here legally on visas on behalf of a foreign nation. If this keeps up, every administration that comes in will have to hand out a new handbook about what is and is not permissible to champion because neither one really wants to give up the weapon of censorship.
Why should students be here on behalf of a foreign nation? If they are students, they should be here to study. If they are here on behalf of a foreign nation, they are not really students.
They are not here on behalf of a foreign nation. They are here to study. That they have opinions on the side should not come as a surprise. This is the excuse I’ve been hearing for awhile. And somehow if they were protesting for Israel, I don’t think their presence would be an issue.
Actually, it is surprising that young people who subscribe to the “Great Satan” theory of America would want to study in what they view as an evil society. Oh, but they want to advocate for changes to improve America and steer it to the correct path? See my previous point.
Okay, let’s cut through this disingenuous BS. These students were basically protesting the university’s investment in Israel because of what is going on in Gaza. They came to the US to pay nearly $100,000 a year in tuition. Yeah, I think they might be entitled to suggest the university not invest the money they’re paying in tuition in a country that is dropping bombs on people like them. You can agree with them or not, but you and the Trump administration and all the Zionists/Israel supporters out there who are blurring the anti-semitism/anti-Israel line are being incredibly dishonest by denying what the issue really was.
And once again, if they were Israeli students over here, I suspect no one would have any problem with them advocating for Israel. In fact one of our big problems is the crowd of people in the US, including dual Israeli-US citizens, who put their allegiance to Israel above the welfare of their fellow US citizens, and I don’t see anyone of your ilk having any problem with that. It’s all good.
So this comes down to viewpoint discrimination, which was what was going on in the last administration, and you all were big mad about it. Where did that go?
Disingenuous BS? You mean like saying it’s only about disinvesting? Have you missed the calls for global intifada and “from the river to the sea”? Where are all the signs for Disinvest Now? Did they project Disinvest Now on buildings? No, it was All Glory to Our Martyrs.
That’s some disingenuous BS.
"From the river to the sea" is protected speech, and, despite Rubio's decision to cancel student visas for people who oppose Israel's actions, students here on valid visas do share our rights to free speech.
Get over it.
I don't recall this much opposition to students protesting America, only Israel. Why is that, I wonder?
Okay, since you seem very ignorant, let's clear up some vocabulary. "Martyr" refers to anyone who has died in Gaza, including women and children. It may refer to members of Hamas, but it also refers to everyone else that Israel has dropped bombs on and killed, including the nine children of pediatrician who were killed while she was at work at the hospital, and she found out about it when the brought the bodies in. Those are also "martyrs."
"Intifada" much like "martyr" means many things. Yes, it can be violent. But it can also just mean protesting. When everyone was running around saying "take back America," what did that mean? Did it mean "vote" or did it mean January 6th on steroids?
I don't care what their slogans were. I care what they demanded of the university. What the hell does "Make America Great Again" mean? You don't know until you read the policy proposals. Now you're play the same game the people you claim to hate played.
As for "from the river to the sea," you need to finish that. What is "from the river to the sea"? If we're suggesting that Palestinians should be free "from the river to the sea," then I'm all in. If you're suggesting that they mean Palestine should exist "from the river to the sea" and you suggest that is a call for genocide, then you have a problem, and your problem is Bibi Netanyahu. He has also used the phrase "from the river to the sea" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V96T8rIkFc), and his military is now killing Palestinians by the droves. So if it's genocidal without the ability to inflict mass murder, then what is it with the ability to inflict mass murder.
I find it a bit hypocritical that you take the most generous interpretation for one group and the least generous for the other. I'd have thought that at least half the country would have learned not to do that being on the receiving end, but here we are.
Coming here and calling for Death to Jews, which is exactly what Free Palestine means, gets Americans killed. It means Free Palestine of Jews. Just stop demonizing people who believe Jews have a right to self determination in their ancestral homeland. That’s all Zionism means. When you demonize us, you encourage people to act on their death chants, as we saw last week.
They are not ALL calling for "Death to Jews," despite your rather imaginative interpretation.
And no, we will not stop demonizing Zionists.
Somehow their "right to self determination" seems to involve a breathtaking number of civilian deaths, as Israel repeatedly commits war crimes by bombing refugee camps, bombing aid workers, and withholding humanitarian aid.
Your lame attempts to blame us for some lunatic shooting random Jews or Israel supporters is laughable.
Glen Greenwald the other night said he has put out a call for any videos of anyone on any campus at all shouting "death to Jews." He hasn't gotten a single one. But even if you could find one, in any group you have the wingnuts.
And you realize that Zionism is only about a hundred years old and was for a long time consider a radical and heretical ideology by Jews themselves.
Did they not know about these “investments” before they decided to contribute an additional $100,000 to the university? It’s of vital importance to them, but nobody checked it out before they arrived? This is complete and total BS. We know why they are here.
Yes, we do. They are here to study, and while they were studying, Israel started bombing the crap out of women and children while pretending to "get Hamas," that's why percentage-wise there are more tunnels left than homes, because they were going after the tunnels *wink wink*. And so the students decided to get involved in already existing protests that they thought they could add credibility to being as they were from a different viewpoint. Smart people know that's why they were here. Reactionary people who worship at the feet of Israel and a group of radicals (every religion has them, though these seem strangely difficult to call out, when the radical Muslims are so very easy for you to call out and identify--I wonder why that is).
Holy cow. I see it's makes no sense to discuss this with you..."Zionists/Israel supporters"...tells us all we need to know.
And what pray tell does it "tell' you that you suddenly "know" everything?
"They are not here on behalf of a foreign nation. They are here to study."
How do you know? How do you know that China, Iran, Venezuela, France or any other country didn't recruit and send spies and rabble rousers as students? You don't and I have no doubt it is happening. In fact, it has been shown numerous times that not only has that happened but they have also sent spies to infiltrate fed and state governments. Your supposition that everyone is innocent and just have thoughts is incredibly naïve.
I love how we can attribute the best of motives for one group and the worst of motives to another based on nothing more than identity.
And you want to talk about a foreign government infiltrating our own with people sympathetic to them, let’s discuss Israel, shall we?
"I love how we can attribute the best of motives for one group and the worst of motives to another based on nothing more than identity."
Isn't that exactly what all your posts do?
Did you see me specifically point to the antisemites on college campuses? Nope. I made a general statement to point out how naive your post is.
You’ve read all my posts! You’re amazing! I might have to have you go through and organize them for me so I can write my memoirs.
Red herring introduced. Obviously "on behalf of" was not the correct phrase. Such word errors might need to be addressed in the upcoming handbook on what constitutes speech disliked by the reigning administration.
I think I see what you're saying, Lillia. In some sense, the prohibition on antisemitic discrimination (in terms of US domestic university funding) can overlap into suppression of legitimate free speech such as criticism of Israel being labeled as support for Hamas. It's that same slippery slope of "woke" where specifics start to count for everything (e.g. a misplaced pronoun means you're a Nazi). I see nothing wrong with the principle of vetting for real dangers such as violence, but as always it can be so easily abused as we have seen. Definitions become everything.
Lillia, I think you are saying something important here, but am confused by the wording of your first sentence. When you say ..."they in turn..", who is "they"? The EU is already trying to censor Americans both for what they say in Euro countries and for what they say in the U.S., (if I am understanding the situation correctly). Also confusing to me is the phrase "on behalf of a foreign nation." Are you referring to the Trump administration's attempts to deport foreign students who protest Israel's military actions in Palestine?
You have the right “they.” It seems the Trump administration wants an unspoken deal. They will on the one hand fight for free speech (for Americans and in general) and in return we’re supposed to overlook this one little exception.
Thanks for your clarification. I have multiple perspectives on how to combat the violations of free speech in the U.S. Most of these violations are being perpetrated by leftists and Democrats, and there has been little or no free speech or press, or academic freedom on campuses of top rated colleges for more than a decade. It is very difficult to construct strategies to oppose the leftist authoritarianism without engaging in behaviors that are also authoritarian, or could at least be so interpreted. One of the main criticisms I have of free speech activists such as Lukianoff is the absence of any proposals for how we can effectively defend our free speech based government from violent domestic authoritarians, of which the mass leftist movement is the most egregious. The idea that engaging in reasonable debate with adversaries is sufficient to protect free speech appears to me to be untenable at this point, just as reasoning with Nazis, Stalinists, etc. was useless.
I don't have the answers to this dilemma.
That’s all very valid and really the best of the arguments. How do you combat authoritarianism without becoming authoritarian? It is a dilemma.
The only way I've seen to stop this is to stop the fake media. If not for the fake media lying constantly to support whatever Dems do and say and denigrate whatever Repubs do and say, we would not have to fight authoritarianism. The media is tasked in the constitution, by getting freedoms under the 1A, to hold government...ALL OF GOVERNMENT...accountable. The Dem party is so horrid because the fake media helps them to be so.
The only way I can see to stop the fake media is to make them irrelevant. We can't have a government entity taking them to task, that leads to...well the fake media. The way I see to make them irrelevant is to stop watching, buying subscriptions, listening, reading everything from them. It would be great if some wealthy folks, not Musk, he's done enough, got together and founded an alternative information source with a cadre of great left and right JOURNALISTS in teams challenging each other to dig out all the facts and editors to ensure we see all the facts. Let the full weight of the facts stop the fake media.
I think your idea is excellent! Every Prog Dem I know gets her news from the Dem Party media. That is why these individuals who don't necessarily know each other are ramped up about the same "news" on the same days, and they all have the same take on whatever the "news" is.
The First A guarantees that we have a free press, not owned and directed by the government, but that only works if there are journalists and media companies that want to be free. For a lot of readers as well the emphasis is more on "we trust that source," than on the source's independence from the government machine. That is of course easier than having to dig through independent media to verify or debunk propaganda, but now we do have to do that because we don't have a source like you described above.
I think the answer lies in not allowing the umbrella of free speech protection to be extended into physical acts that interfere with others. Blocking access to buildings, taking over public spaces etc do not become free speech simply by shouting slogans or holding up signs while engaging in this behavior.
Let them publish any vile content they want. Let them try to persuade using only the force of their ideas. But do not give in to the idea that taking over public spaces is free speech. Only people who cannot persuade turn to physical intimidation tactics. No, you cannot stage a “protest” at Union Station. Doing so will result in arrest and prosecution.
I’m sorry if you feel your ideas are not getting enough public attention. Learn to be more persuasive, or get better ideas.
I absolutely agree! The fundamental responsibility of parents, teachers and whatever "adults" still exist in our society is to establish and enforce limits on behavior, for the protection of all involved, and for the growth of kids into well organized adults.
Yes. Pretending that people wearing keffiyehs attempting to intimidate others are just exercising free speech has got to stop.
Exactly.
As an aside:
(I figured out how to "collapse" the sub-thread, open it in another window to read. The main thread is much smaller without it. HA!)
I read through this sub-thread, and just have an obvious comment that no one has mentioned.
- None of these "students" are actually what they appear to be, on many levels.
Harvard is part of the "Deep State", that engages in training "students" like the campus protestors. Many of the Universities are as well. The reason they have not been shut down until the Trump administration is that the "Deep State" is paying for these "protests".
Trump is trying to shut down this aspect of the "Deep State" that has been training undercover agents for decades.
I expect the world to settle down now that the money is drying up.
lol! I know we don’t know one another, but you’d be surprised!
It's only right.
We created and funded this monster. We need to shut it down before those organizations spill back into the US.
This is the latest Tucker episode:
Mike Benz: The CIA’s Use of NGOs to Coup Foreign Governments, and How They’re Doing It to Trump
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-mike-benz-3
Thank you. I like listening to Tucker when he has a guest that interests me, which is rare. So I don't remember to check his show very often. But Benz is definitely of interest and I might have missed this if you hadn't posted it.
This is the way! Amazing to see a Secretary of State actually act in a manner that advances American interests.
This is great as far as it goes. Now we just need to back off on our own censorship, i.e., deporting various foreign students for their speech, and applying the screws to anyone who dares to stray into anything critical of Israel.
It is truly amazing that we don't do anything to people protesting America, only Israel.
It’s about time.
This sounds like a giant win for, well for all of us, but specifically for the efforts of Public and Taibbi and Benz and certainly others I'm unaware of.
Thank you for your work to expose these dangers and for getting them to the attention of our new leadership.
So far, the implementation of these policies and the expression of them and publications (such as the State Dept. publication on Substack) I personally favor. The expressions and policies seem to be straightforward advocacy for the core values of freedom in our Bill of Rights. We will see how this develops. I hope it continues on a reasonable middle path of advocacy.
I see in comments that there is a big confusion between censorship and immigration. Prosecution for free speech is imposing fines or jail time. Denying or cancelling a visa isn't prosecution! Brazil and EU countries can deny entry to every foreigner whose speech they don't like. But they shouldn't be able to tell foreign companies how those operate on their own soil and threaten executives with arrest.
I see this as a win for Michael and all of Public. Some fearless REAL journalism being carried out by REAL journalists. This is what I voted for and this is why I subscribe.
This is a great start. Americans must have their free speech rights protected wherever they are and American companies need assurances that free speech will always prevail. Censorship of American companies by foreign governments ultimately results in censorship of all Americans.