Jonathan Turley: Democrats' 'final line of defense' is 'outright state censorship
For years Twitter has been a liberal stronghold. Leftist views were promoted and publicized, while conservative thought sometimes was … not there.
That was a good example of free thought, free speech and free enterprise, leftists praised.
But now that Elon Musk has announced his purchase of the company, with intent to take it private and possibly restore "free speech," liberals are aghast.
Hypocritically, according to law professor, legal analyst and popular commentator Jonathan Turley.
He pointed out in a column that Musk's plans prompted Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to warn free speech values on social media now threatens Democracy itself.
And Barack Obama? He declared "regulation has to be part of the answer" to the leftist claim that "disinformation" is warping the nation.
Turley noted that progressives now "have adopted a dangerous shift in their strategy of calling for corporations to censor speech."
"Obama has never been viewed as an ally on free speech by those of us who have been attacked for our 'absolutist' views. Moreover, calling for censorship as a free speech absolutist is like claiming to be a vegetarian while calling for mandatory meat consumption," Turley charged.
"Obama favors free speech only if it does not include disinformation, including what he considers to be 'lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.'"
He noted that the First Amendment technically does not control private corporations like Twitter and Facebook, which have been used by liberals to "circumvent constitutional bans on censorship."
But now, with Twitter in the hands of Musk, they are alarmed, he explained.
"Democrats are falling back to their final line of defense – and finally being honest about their past use of corporate surrogates," he said. "They are now calling for outright state censorship."
He pointed out Hillary Clinton, as she often does, "stripped away any niceties or nuance," by calling for the European Union to pass a massive censorship measure.
"Clinton's call for censoring disinformation was breathtakingly hypocritical. President Obama was briefed by his CIA Director John Brennan on 'alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.' The intelligence suggested it was 'a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server,'" he explained.
"Moreover, her call for censorship came just weeks after special counsel John Durham offered more details about the accusation that her campaign manufactured a false Russian collusion theory," he wrote.
He said under the EU plan, "users will be empowered to report illegal content online and online platforms will have to act quickly," and that would include speech that someone labels "disinformation" and also "incitement."
He said the progressive campaigners now have come full circle, advocating for government to censor what previously Democrats relied on corporations to censor.
He also went on social media with his message:
…The Disinformation Governance Board needs a catchy slogan. How about "The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better."
or perhaps "We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them."
― George Orwell, 1984
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 28, 2022
…The entrance of the Executive Branch into such supervision of facts would seem a matter for legislative debate on the use of public funds for such a purpose.
…Citizens can now chose between lies and truth under the watchful eye of the Biden Administration's Disinformation Governance Board. It is not clear what the consequences may be to those who run afoul of the DGB and the MSM, but one should chose wisely. https://t.co/g2KcT3vABC
Report: Biden's DOJ conspired with SPLC to attack Georgia election integrity law