As previously detailed in Racket, the American playwright has been sent a "punishment order" and a choice: 60 days or 3,600 Euros for two tweets and a book cover
Give up your free speech at your peril. Once they are able to silence you, the game is over. All of your other freedoms will fall like dominoes after. Anyone that advocates to censor you, or to unmask your anonymity is your adversary. Treat them like one - no matter what else they say.
---
Why is it so vital and necessary for the combined monolithic apparatus of government, corporations, and NGOs, to brute force censor everyone while decimating the careers and reputations of the dissenters? Here is why:
The reason the First Amendment is prime directive order 1, is because it is the most important freedom we have for the same reason it is the first target an adversary subverts, disrupts, and destroys during a crime, a war, or a takeover—preventing a target from assembling, communicating, and organizing a response to an assault grants an enormous advantage to the aggressors.
This is and has been occurring all across the globe since the minute this COVID-19 fraud was propagated to every corner of the earth.
The Second Amendment is second because it is the remedy for anyone trying to subvert the First.
The fog of this war is purposefully thick—a massive labyrinth filled with wrong turns, dead ends, and long, interesting paths to nowhere—relentless discombobulation are important tentpoles of demoralization and destabilization.
Cheers, fellow traveler. Just remember that when there's bad shit happening, someone is actively putting it there. Nothing comes out of the ether, especially when it is at the advantage of the oligarchy.
Yuri: No, you cannot. But, a much larger percentage of the population is aware of all the shenanigans than were before the clown show. The CDC now admits that nearly 40% of those who got the first jab never came back for the second, so a substantial majority of Americans (I calculate about 58%) are not "fully-poisoned."
If you could spell his name right, I might take you seriously. The Yuri Bezmenov in this interview with Edward Griffin in 1968 is the one we're talking about.
It seems like you're frustrated and just want to have a respectful conversation about the trends in the modern world. If that's right, I'd be happy to chat.
The objective is to silence us through intimidation. If the censors can make an example of an outspoken opponent like C.J. Hopkins, they can discourage others from following him or even reading his book. Germany doesn't have the strong protection of individual rights as are provided under the US Constitution, so they can be used as a hammer.
“What is a militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual to enslave them.”
—George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights
“The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
—Joseph Storey, 1833, U.S. Supreme Court justice
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . .disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
—Thomas Jefferson’s commonplace book, 1774-1776, quoting from “On Crimes and Punishment” (1764) by criminologist Cesare Beccaria
In addition it was well-understood by the founders that the phrase “a well-regulated militia” meant a militia that was trained and practiced in the use of weapons, not one under the thumb of the biblical-length book of federal regulations.
A bit of "real" history to counter your "fake" history. Recommend tapping into the link below. Makes for interesting and illuminating reading.
“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum."
"...There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision."
“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Excellent argument against gun control legislation.
If litigators and judges who support the second amendment do not know what the founders were thinking, and therefore can not make rulings based on what they believe the framers were thinking, then, conversely, neither can those who wish to legislate away second amendment rights.
This means that the best approach is to let the status quo remain.
Brilliant! You have single-handedly laid to rest the entire gun control debate!
Oh, so we don’t have to take you seriously, then. You should have just said so from the start. Luckily, what you want doesn’t mean fuck all. Millions of us own firearms, even those scary “assault rifles,” and there’s not a goddamn thing you can do about it.
In September 2020, this was the CDC's best estimate for the COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate by Age Group:
0-19 years old: 0.00003
20-49 years old: 0.0002
50-69 years old: 0.005
70+ years old: 0.054
Meaning all of this was based on a lie:
the masks ● the social distancing ● the lockdowns ● the economic and farming destruction ● the mental and physical health destruction ● the arrested development of millions of children ● the myriad of preventable suicides ● the bevy of new, rushed, and barely tested vaccines
But just one death justifies the campaign of lies, slander, censorship, and the retardation of a generation of schoolchildren! How can you be so insensitive?!?!?
There is a HUGE difference between dying FROM Covid and dying WITH Covid. It's been total propaganda from the start. The initial estimated fatality rate was 3%. Masks were ineffective, then masks were effective. Everyone should travel, come to Chinatown, then stay in your house and don't go anywhere. The vaccine is dangerous, if Trump is for it then I'm against it, then get the vaccine and all the boosters or you're an enemy of the state. These draconian mandates caused deaths, people died following ridiculous policies. This is clearly Marxist normalization. I am quite certain that the 7 million dead will be charmed by your interest and your support of policies that killed people. And I am also quite certain of who are and aren't advocates for the Death Cult.
Ok. But all the amendments had to be forced upon The Authors. Why are We all always so shocked and dismayed that we have (and always have had) to fight for them? They were never intended to be honored or to last this long.
Because they thought the it was stupid to need a list of things the govt. cannot take from you when the entire logical construct of the preceding text contains the entirety of the universe of accepted govt. power.
"You can only do these things. Nothing more."
"Okay but what about this?"
But we are stupid, so it was certainly fortuitous we ended up with this thing we shouldn't have ever needed but for the craven stupidity of man.
Thank you, Matt! As I said when we spoke, my case is just one of many, many examples of this kind of naked crackdown on dissent and political opposition, and blatant disregard for the rule of law that old farts like me were brought up to believe governed our democratic societies, and protected the people from the arbitrary exercise of power by our governments.
Your work is a treasure, sir. We wish you all the best, and we sincerely thank you for taking one for the team and fighting the noble fight. This will serve as a lightning rod to the critical importance of speech!
You're doing it. Thank you! And you can stay up to date with my columns on my Substack with a free or paid subscription. More important is to spread the word about this kind of thing, which is happening in many countries, not just in Germany.
My grandfather was the youngest superior court judge (‘Senats President’, I believe), in Weimar Germany. He got out a week before the knock on the door. Sixty years later, his youngest daughter, living in Washington State, told me these words of his: „Das Gesetz ist meine beruf, aber die Gerechtigkeit ist meine Pflicht.“
“The law is my profession but justice is my duty.”
How he would have laughed to learn that the suppression of past crimes is carried out using the tactics of past criminals.
We must remain in solidarity. Our ideas define us, but only our numbers can protect us.
"Senatspräsident" could be correct. Depends on what level he was as a judge. That term was discontinued a long time ago, but in the 1920s/30s wuold still have been in use. Lucky for him to get out! Nice statement from him.
Thanks for that. I was a child when I last saw him, and never saw his title written. B
His youngest daughter, my mother, died ten years ago today. How odd to calculate that he was born not that long after America’s civil war. And so little has changed.
My paternal grandmother was born in the US in 1897 but spoke German as a first language. According to her, they didn't teach my dad German in the late 30s-early 40s because at the time, speaking German was frowned upon in the US (they were in Wisconsin).
My grandmother died 30 years ago, but that story (true or not) comes back to me often during the last years of #Russiagate, where just being Russian, or people thinking you're Russian, or even that you have contacts to Russians, makes you questionable as an American.
Sadly you're so right. So little has changed. We are still a violent, jingoistic nation.
We have FOUR good men in PRISON in Canada for being involved in the completely PEACEFUL Truckers Freedom March. They are guilty before being proven innocent and have been jailed for over 545 days with NO DUE PROCESS. How is this possible in what used to be a FREE COUNTRY?
We have one good woman facing a long court proceeding and a sentence of 10 YEARS in prison simply for helping organize the completely peaceful Freedom March across Canada. She is not permitted to use Facebook or any social media and cannot talk to any of the other organizers. Because she stood up to the tyrant Trudeau.
The current government is out of control with their attempts AT control. You are right. These “examples” are being made around the world. Trudeau and his father have tried to take Canadians legal hunting/sport shooting guns on many attempts. They will not succeed.
Stay safe, you have committed no crime. We all see exactly what is going on. They are making an example of you, believing it will keep the rest of us in line. Not gonna happen this time.
Same thing has and is happening with environmental and indigenous activists in Canada. Sadly, this is nothing new. Only now the legal process seems to be more drawn out as a punishment for those that challenge government. On the bright side those that are freedom lovers do win at times. About one thousand arrests of Fairy Creek Old Growth protesters were thrown out in British Columbia recently.
I supported the Truck Convoy cause I love freedom. Freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of speech are vitally important.
Exactly. The message is: Don't step out of line because even if you didn't technically break any laws, we can take your time and money to make you prove your innocence. And even if you win, there is no recompense.
Jennifer, most of the press is complicit in the silencing of dissent. That is perhaps the scariest part of all of this, the fact that there is no effective press coverage of this and other similar outrages.
My subscription automatically renews in about a week, so hopefully that helps. I think we're past the 2 Neos, or Neo-conservative and Neo-liberal, to straight up Neo-authoritarianism. If you get a chance, look up the case of Scott Ritter, whose YouTube channel, highly critical of US policy on Ukraine, was deleted without warning for "hate speech" not specified. Ritter's very intense but also quite humorous, a kind of real life "Walter" from the "Big Lebowski." The Monster known as the "Criminalization of Dissent" has emerged from its Cave and is waving its Lawless club in the Streets. I would say "God Help Us!," but I'm a non-practicing atheist, etc...
It's not the Germans. It's the entire Western world. Britain/Canada/Australia/NZ don't even pretend to value free speech anymore. We've clearly seen the American govt aggressively attacking social media to prevent dissent. The new EU social media law (DSA) is certainly going to crush digital speech in Europe. Western values are under attack.
That said, I will note that the French ruling classes will do whatever takes to prevent anyone not entirely subservient to the Atlanticist consensus from getting into the Champ d'Elysee.
I don't understand your point. You can't even use Rumble in France. Yet you aren't in the streets. The DSA will curtail your digital speech further. Will you be in the streets?
Muttman: That "history of blindly following authority" is a result of the Prussian form of schooling, which is designed to crush the spirit, imagination, intellect, and critical thinking skills of the whole population of children, to make them obedient and docile. This was developed in the second half of the 19th Century, as large-scale industry was beginning to develop, and the oligarchs at the time needed obedient, docile, unthinking workers to do the shit jobs for long hours. This system was then imported to the U.S. by our own home-grown oligarchs, and spread throughout the country by the early 20th Century. See John Taylor Gatto's "Weapons of Mass Instruction" for a full history of this crime against children. I am convinced that the major reason for the cultural rot and economic collapse we are witnessing is schooling. Contrary to what many believe, the purpose of schooling is not only not education, but it is anti-educational. Public schools, private schools, charter schools,.nearly any kind of school is simply damaging to children.
I have read J.T. Gatto's critique of US public schools, and it's an eye-opener, especially the history and the creepy philosophies of the early leaders of public schooling.
However, I went to public schools in Chicago and a Western Suburb from Headstart in 1966 through high school in 1978 and was always encouraged to think independently and read widely/deeply. The only thing anywhere close to anything like state propaganda was in the now-extinct Civics class, which praised American exceptionalism while teaching how the Republic is designed to work.
So I did not personally experience the allegedly deadening effect of public schooling. Quite the opposite, in fact.
There are now people literally wandering streets in the US wearing rebreathers to save themselves from COVID. Blindly following authority after a sufficient level of terrorist propaganda is inevitable. Combine it with decades of education specifically designed to create that urge for obedience to authority, as has been the norm in the US since 1984, and trying to pigeonhole that response is counterfactual.
What these authorities seem to be oblivious to is that they’re proving your point: no one is allowed to criticize them (those with the power to set the rules) or point out flaws in their assertions. The message is loud and clear — disagree at your own peril.
I'm an American living "next door" in Austria. I've been watching uneasily as Austria over the decades slides closer to NATO and farther from its constitutional neutrality. I can only imagine what it is like in US occupied Germany!
Fortunately, NATO and particularly the US jumped the shark with the coup->civil war in Ukraine. When the war ends there will be a backlash against NATO and particuarly the US. How big/far it will go is the big question.
Good luck to you getting out. I didn't know you before, but anyone Taibbi supports can't be a completely bad. I have subscribed on Substack to get to know you.
I have been talked into setting up a sort of legal defense fund, and will post about that shortly, tomorrow, hopefully. In the meantime, there's info here: https://cjhopkins.com/contact/
Actually they more resemble Germany since Arminius/Hermanric and Teutoburger Wald in 8 CE. Or Charlemagne in Saxony or any number of German kings, nobles and imperials post-Roman Empire West.
America’s never been much for knowing the history of anything for fear of discovering, no doubt, that this nation-state is no more manifestly destined to be a chosen and peculiar people than the former villagers and nobles of the villages inundated by the Black Sea a few millennia ago.
Those on the left will justify CJ's punishment and at the same time their own comparisons of Trump to Hitler because Trump is "literally Hitler", am I right?
Kudos to CJ for acknowledging the free speech implications of the Trump indictments here in the US-and thank you to Taibbi for having Racket offer to pay his fine-that’s the kind of thing I appreciate from my subscription $.
I used to subscribe to his Substack and enjoyed his posts, but even a year or more ago I knew he was skating on thin ice. I used to shake my head and mutter, "Dude, you live in Germany, a country that has not had freedom of speech or even thought since 1933."
He's an American. Expat Americans should not confuse their host countries' alleged enthusiasm for free speech with America's statutory protections. The USA is the only country where free speech is (mostly) protected, and it is hard (on purpose) to remove those statutory protections.
If he wanted to post counter-narrative rants, there is only one place in the world where he could do that without risk of prosecution. Hopkins knew that, or should have.
Edit: Just re-read that and it sounds harsh, though I'll leave it up. I'm not suggesting Hopkins deserves his treatment or anything like that. After all, I agree with almost everything he says. But the things he says cannot be safely said outside the USA. He's not the first in Europe to be prosecuted for what in this country is protected speech. His martyrdom will not change that; most right-thinking Germans will agree with his prosecution, as would most right-thinking French, Dutch, Spanish, etc. Maybe even most right-thinking British.
So, what you are saying also is Americans better keep up this fight no matter the consequences or the whole world is silenced. I don't think people appreciate this fact enough.
It's the point. The WEF is the west now. They've conquered the EU, Canada, and Australia, and are trying to break the US. They are just about there. One more pandemic or tragic event and 15 minute cities and taxes on automobiles will be everywhere. I give it 7 years. 50% of the US will go gladly, and the sad part is that most of that 50% are the most highly educated people in the history of the world, yet still dumber than a 12th century peasant.
Yeah. What I've learned from my overly educated son is that we have alot of educated people who are educated very specifically in one subject. They aren't well rounded and have very little real-world intelligence. Not all, but he tells me it's a high percentage. He was lucky enough to grow up with middle-class parents who taught him life skills along with his high priced papers. As in, he can change his own damn oil. Ha! I do think Americans are on a very slippery slope. Fortunately, if our separation of powers stays intact, it won't go that far. However, I sure hope some of us stand up no matter so that we don't leave that kind of world (no hope) to future generations. Without free speech, there is no true freedom.
I don't care if you don't want to change your own oil, or call Roadside for your tire... I would like kids that have just graduated from college to be able to calculate Sales tax or a tip without an app. I'd take just simple things.
Excellent point about the specialized nature of higher education and yet it still produces many idiots in even their chosen fields.
My grandad was a self taught engineer in the 1930s (thanks to Canada’s work camps) and ended up working in a city engineering department post WWII.
The Sydney Harbour Bridge (completed in 1932) thanks to the excellent work of engineers and workers has had almost no bolts replaced in the bridge. Most of the maintenance has been regarding the paint.
When I was in Cape Town a local artist pointed out in his exhibition that few residents of the city today would have survived in the region thousands of years ago.
I know. I think about how America was built, especially as the Industrial age set in. I've watched those documentaries. Are those people still alive in us? I hope so, but am not so sure.
Ah, very good, an entrepreneurial Racket News Conspiracy Theorist rocking the 15-Minute conspiracy theory, hard-memed by the indefatigable Doctor-Professor Jordan "Dazed-and-Confused" Peterson.
"...This 15-minute-city focus on creating lively, people-friendly neighborhoods was a “perversion,” claimed Canadian psychologist turned hard-right culture warrior Jordan Peterson in a tweet that garnered 7.5 million views. “Idiot tyrannical bureaucrats,” he declared, would henceforth “decide by fiat where you’re ‘allowed’ to drive,” as if city traffic departments have not done this very thing for at least the last hundred years."
When will the authorities take pity on the poor good Doctor-Professor, bring his public misery to an end, wrap him tightly in fresh, white bed linens and cart him off to one of those places where they house poor souls who have just been wrapped tightly in fresh, white bed linens?
I know, right? Jesus. What am I? A leper? Bill---go samaritan on me, take some pity on a shunned Racket News commenter, and giv'em a "like." Your good deed for the day. Come on. Do it.
Yes, and I also feel a bit like a shit pointing out that Hopkins knew he was taking his chances by operating in Germany, because after all people have to take a stand, take risks, to make change.
I guess what I'm responding to is the sense of outrage and surprise I'm seeing. It's not really that surprising to me, is all.
No. I actually think it's important for people (especially in the US) to understand this can become a way of life and a common, expected outcome. I believe he should speak. I imagine you believe the same. It's important to point out what becomes an everyday expectation when we no longer have the right to speak.
I think the sense of outrage and surprise is because most of us posting are coming from an American perspective, where such things are antithetical to our way of thinking about free speech.
WAPO deleting your posts from their website is not a violation of your free speech rights. You don’t have the right to force the WAPO to listen to what you have to say
You have to consider the ethical stance of the Post--they're propagandists for the regime and will suck up to and defend the system of bureaucratic power and influence they have come to rely on for prestige and support.
As someone living in the UK, I'm watching the EU's continuing attack on Free Speech with disgust. The Digital Services Act defines disinformation as "anything we don't like" and provides powers to suppress it. Of course, if a "crisis" is declared, those EU powers become even greater... and guess who gets to define when something becomes a "crisis" ? The EU.
As an American who lived in the UK at the tail end of the Troubles, who admired the grit, determination and easy good humor of my hosts, I am completely dismayed by what has happened there since 2001.
As an immigrant from the UK I believed everything that was said about freedom of speech in America: I have it, no one can interfere with it. As a lawyer, I began almost every brief, motion or other pleading with a relevant citation to either the US Constitution or the State Constitution, sometimes both. They were inviolate. No more. Dangerous times.
We have a Bill of Rights, based on natural law-above any specific government. Brits have “rights” granted at the discretion of whatever upper class twit, to quote Monty Python.
The English produced the Bill of Rights of 1689, maybe the first such legislation in history. Our boys had a century to think about how to improve it, and I think they did a pretty good job. The Bill of Rights of 1689 is still (mostly) part of the British Constitution.
Great reference. An incredibly valuable document for many reasons, you hitting on what I believe the single most one.
To few have been exposed to the importance of the millennia of developing Anglo-American legal traditions. We learn the Brits were bad guys from 1770-1815. Then nothing until 1941 when they are the good guys.
The day that DDE was made SAC marked the first time in history that the dominant power in the West changed hands voluntarily and peacefully (the change, not the catalyst for it).
It’s part of a collective tradition, but it doesn’t specifically guarantee rights outside the purview/consent of government. The governments grants the rights in GB, the government must respect/acknowledge the rights in the USA.
I am so sick of this bullshit argument. Familiarize yourself with German law. Germany has free-speech protections (written into its Grundgesetz) like most Western countries, and the ban on displaying Nazi imagery, and the exceptions to the ban (i.e., when it is permissible), are clearly articulated. Seriously, all you are doing is increasing people's ignorance.
I apologize. I admit I do not know the specific ins and outs of German law.
But I do know this: Germany, like every other country except the US, regulates political speech. And that's all the camel's nose needed to go after any counter-narrative voices. They are not coming after you because you violated some minor clause of this or that national law, they are doing so because you are their enemy, pure and simple. And the two simplest tools they have to attack you are a controlled media and a controlled judiciary.
Hey, same as we have here in America! But we also have the First Amendment, so it's a little more difficult for them here. They can (and have) silenced Americans, in some media, but it's gonna be much harder to get a prosecution in the absence of laws governing political speech.
As I said, I used to be a subscriber (maybe paid? I had a lot more paid subscriptions back in the day, I had to cut back!). I enjoyed your posts. I watched you during interviews. I am sympathetic with what is happening to you now, I agree it's bullshit. Be even back then, I remember shaking my head and thinking, "How is he going on like that in Continental Europe? At a time when even Canada is shutting down the bank accounts of political enemies and their sympathizers?"
If they are truly bullshit charges, I'm sure you will prevail in the courts, because Germany is a free and just nation of laws. Right?
Sorry to jump down your neck. I'm not in the best of moods. The US 1st Amendment is absolutely stronger than the European speech protections, but they do exist. Research Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is what most European countries have incorporated into their laws and constitutions.
And I'm sorry I even posted! As I mentioned elsewhere, I think what I'm responding to is the sense of outrage and surprise, and I just didn't find it very surprising outcome, not in Germany. Shitty, but not surprising.
But on reflection, we need people to take a stand, to take risks, to make a point. I just will never ask anyone else to be that guy, not if I'm not willing to do it myself.
Regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, let’s look at Article 19. It’s very well-written, clear and concise:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Clearly any country that prohibits “hate speech,” as most European countries and Canada do, is not following this unambiguous declaration.
Maybe they are using Article 29 as a Get Out of Jail Free Card. So anything goes.
EU Human Rights law is worthless and counts for nothing. It may sound superficially like the Bill of Rights but the entire process is deeply ideological. ECHR had nothing to say about lockdowns, but has everything to say about the rights of illegal immigrants. The UK may soon leave the ECHR for this reason.
A concept of human rights that has nothing to say about mass imprisonment, shutdowns of businesses and civic life, systematic government-led censorship and making it mandatory to take experimental drugs is clearly not worth the paper it's written on. Violations of human rights are always justified by doing something for the greater collective good, so by not opposing these actions it showed that the ECHR is just yet another way to encode specific ideological preferences in institutions by pretending they will be fairly applied.
I've read the EU Human Rights. They are a joke because those in charge can and do slap any caveat they want on a 'right'. They do it all the time. In the US it's also become iffy. Case in point "InfoWars and Alex Jones". That verdict has never been challenged and it took a big chunk out of our 1st Amendment. It is all going to be down hill from now on.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court basically ruled that the Justice people do not have to know their on laws can claim ignorance of the law. In my case, suing the state of New Hampshire.
The article includes several examples of books that bear swastika images offered for sale in Germany.
Strangely, none of the authors are prosecuted for hate crimes. Must be an oversight. I'm sure that right now the German authorities are preparing charges against Mel Brooks for making "The Producers".
One of the reasons the Founders inserted statutory protections for speech is because they realized how unevenly potential anti-speech laws were likely to be enforced, They would be wielded against perceived enemies of the ruling claque, while anyone else gets a pass. It has ever been so.
Note, for example, the uneven enforcement of "ToS violations" on America's social media platforms.
"In the Garden of Beasts" by Eric Larsen was first published in 2011.
Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin. Set in Berlin in 1933-1934, the book tells the story of America's first ambassador to Nazi Germany, William E. Dodd, and his daughter Martha, as they experience the rising terror of Hitler's rule.
A very interesting a book, especially how the American president re-acted to the reports from his ambassador about the precarious conditions in Germany.
After witnessing the wholesale demonization and ostracism of the unvaccinated here in the US, I am no longer quite as mystified by what happened in Germany in the 1930s. I watched something similar happen here, with Americans, with my own eyes.
Agreed, good book. It effectively illustrates how Germany was slowly, then suddenly strangled by Hitler, while lots of "good" people just went about their business and did nothing about it. The proverbial slow boil of a frog. I wish Larsen's writing style wasn't so annoying though.
I got a lifetime ban for political speech on a website run by physicists. They had all these rules but in actual practice anything they liked was OK and anything they didn't like was not OK.
I got banned for saying American exceptionalism meant the USA considered itself above the law. I thought it was a basic fact everyone knew.
He wrote tweets. Is Twitter a German company? He wrote a book. Was it published in Germany? Or was it published in the U.S? Because Germany prosecuting an American seems the same insanity as the U.S. prosecuting an Australian. We live in clown world where anything goes, I guess.
It would still make zero sense if he wrote in chalk on a sidewalk in Berlin. Government suppression of speech always makes zero sense and is always wrong, whatever the jurisdictional issues might be.
I agree it's wrong, but how does it make "zero sense" for a country to enforce the laws that have been duly and legally enacted? Isn't that a feature of national sovereignty?
A homeowner in Seattle wrote in chalk outside a judge's house on the sidewalk during the foreclosure crimes of 2008. The Court sent the U.S. Marshalls to houses of homeowners who were defending their homes in court. The words, apparently, we not threatening any violence toward the judiciary.
I have another angle on that. In addition to free speech, we here in the US (also uniquely) enjoy a statutory protection for possession of firearms. And I possess over 100 of them. However, if I was caught in Germany with an AR-15 and prosecuted, I wouldn't be very surprised, and I would expect to see very few expressions of sympathy or surprise from, well, from anyone (hell, I can't even take an AR-15 fifteen miles up the road into California).
The only reason I have so many guns is because I live in the US. If I lived in, say, France (where I once attempted to emigrate) I wouldn't have any guns at all, probably.
And I would be much more careful about what I posted on the Internet.
Again, if you had an AR-15 in Germany that would be a PHYSICAL thing. What this American did was post to the international internet company based in the U.S.........just words. Nothing physical, not a German tweet. Not a German company.
I’m sorry, but I’m really having trouble understanding your objection. What difference does “physical” make? What if he had posted child porn? What if he had emailed explicit threats of violence?
I completely agree that the German law about Nazi symbology is an unambiguous and counterproductive restriction on speech and would never fly in the U.S. because of the first amendment. And I agree furthermore that this particular application of it is counter to the original intent of the law, and is an attempt to stifle speech that is counter to the preferred narrative for reasons completely unrelated to that original intent, and it is selective prosecution to boot in light of the array of similar uses of the symbology described in this post. Shame on them for that.
But WTF is this business about whether the violation is “physical”?
I know. But in very narrow circumstances, and I suspect the rules are different for foreigners (as they are here). Anyway, if I showed up at Munich Airport with an AR-15 in my luggage, things would not go well for me. Which is why I won't take an AR-15 to Germany (or even California).
Free speech in the UK. I live in Texas but have a pal in London. He is on the other side of the political fence but he and I never debate facts, we discuss what is to be done about them. Then we disagree and makes jokes about how difficult it IS NOT to be friendly in disagreement. This was mostly around 15 years ago when we were both in our mid-30s.
He is a strong human rights supporter, so am I. His view is that gov't intervention is necessary to preserve them. I agree in specific circumstances, some times, but mostly think that gov't IS the problem.
There is one point of disagreement I could never reconcile. For all of his support for human rights he adopts a patriarchal stance on speech. Some things, he argues, should not be protected speech even if true. These almost entirely focused on nazis. If one is a nazi one should have no right to speak about it (censoring based on identity of the speaker and their message). One, not a nazi, could never say anything that might be confused with approval, whether it be true or not, the comment or the approval (censoring based on content and/or a perceived positive value judgment).
I'd argue that exposing stupidity to the light of day was the easiest way to make it whither. He'd argue that some thoughts are very bad and giving them voice is too dangerous.
I'd counter, control of information is the cornerstone of autocracy. He'd respond with previous comment. At the end of the day, he was willing to take the risks that censorship brings rather than allow that particular brand of horror to be given any press.
I could be wrong but I feel like this new (to me, anyhow) view of certain speech as some kind of self-evident (to them) light switch (dog whistle?) that engages a dangerous new Fascism is purely an artifact, intentional or not, of marxist/communist propaganda.
It is such a facile, nonsense stance I just don't understand how it is so pervasive.
Remind your friend censorship of Hitler by the state immediately preceded his popularity.
He’s a smart man and needs no reminding. But that’s the thing. He’s smart, he believes in free speech, excepting the Hitler stuff. (Haven’t talked since covid so it would be interesting where he came down on that.)
The fact that he allows for exceptions isn’t a matter of how smart or well informed he is. It is a matter, near as I can tell, if him accepting a false virtue and paternalistic view (which oddly enough is infantilizing in practice).
American statutory protections is but an illusion that has already gone by the wayside as a childish hope. Evidenced by the new statutory protections for wall-e world adult children :
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of reach."
"But the things he says cannot be safely said outside the USA."
Oh I think he would be all right in Mali, Niger, or Burkina Faso. Many other countries -- most? -- would not care a foop what he said about masks. I don't see that Reunion Island or Paraguay would be involved in such things. They don't have a System that has nothing better to do than worry about such trivialities.
And I don't see why you're so sure it would be OK in the USA. The Constitution is for the most part a dead letter, a fig leaf. Only the sections that are vigorously defended are followed.
Agreed. Since Jones was banned, nothing that has happened since has been surprising to me.
I was surprised at the time at how little outcry there was. Whatever one may think of Jones, his offenses are small potatoes compared to the Nazi party marching in Skokie...
Agreed, back when the ACLU leadership (Glasser and Nadine Strossen) had free-speech chops. These days one of its most high-profile lawyers has publicly advocated for the suppression of a book that offended his sensibilities -- and he wasn't summarily canned.
“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all” — Noam Chomsky
“I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake” — Thomas More (as channeled by screenwriter Robert Bolt in "A Man for All Seasons"
I think the ACLU was co-opted, a casualty of the long march through the institutions. Also, though I agree with the quote, I'm disappointed in Chomsky. Mostly for saying the "unvaxxed" needed to be removed from society, but also for being pals with Jeffrey Epstein.
Yes, that comment about the unvaxxed was a shocker. The connection with Epstein is less so: Epstein cultivated famous people and intellectuals as a cover (and maybe because they were interesting). That didn't necessarily includ sexual favors. Chomsky was a bit careless about it, though.
Alex Jones has the right to say whatever he wants, and to be held civilly liable for any damages his speech causes. At no time was he in danger of state action against his freedom (unless they charge him with perjury, which is a separate matter).
I think the law is in its infancy on whether social media is the "public square", but for now they are private businesses that have the right to refuse service to anyone.
I think the law is in its infancy on whether social media is the "public square", but for now they are private businesses that have the right to refuse service to anyone.
------------
This has been disproven repeatedly in the Twitter Files, which show how government is dictating censorship on basically every issue of the day.
If corporate media was held to the standard they are using to persecute Jones, there would be no corporate media. It's ridiculous to pretend Jones is the worst of anything in media.
“The trouble about fighting for human freedom,” Mencken remarked once, “is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons-of-bitches; for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
---------
You'll note I said nothing at all about Jones as a person, only that people who understood where this was going were fighting for his right to be an idiot, asshole, wrong, or any combination of the three.
The civil suit against Alex set a new standard that will be the undoing of our legal system. No one said anything because of comments like the ones posted here. The default position of most people is "you support HIM".
USG has already given us "Hate Crimes". Next will be "Hate Speech". Then "Hate Thoughts". They can do this because for 60 plus years we've been taught to ignore reason and react only with emotions in a cult-like manner.
“ The civil suit against Alex set a new standard that will be the undoing of our legal system.”
Bullshit. Jones got sued for defamation. A defendant in a defamation suit has more than enough First Amendment protection. It’s extremely difficult to win a defamation case, in part because the defendant is afforded so much Constitutional protection (I’ve brought a few defamation cases as a lawyer — you need a very strong case to prevail).
Jones lost for good reasons. He was not sued for the equivalent committing a “hate crime.” He lost because he smeared the plaintiffs’ reputations with intentional lies about facts, not opinions.
Yes. The primary issue in a defamation case is that the defendant made false statements about the plaintiff which harmed the plaintiff’s reputation. What’s your point?
I am going to take this opportunity to speak up for the ill-informed. To my knowledge I have never read anything published by the Alex Jones of whom you post. Haven't sought him out; can't say I know anything about him. Apparently, he didn't need to be censored for a certain population to have passed him by.
It is really all about messaging --- to the rest of us.
More for sure. And I'll keep posting it until people understand it! I don't stick up for Trump because I think he's a wonderful person -- I stick up for him because he's being indicted by his political enemies twisting government into their own attack force.
I had two chances to vote for Trump and both times I insisted I don't vote for clowns. But following recent events he has my (swing state) vote in 2024.* And I know there are a lot of Americans who feel the same way.
* Unless RFK jr is also on the ballot; then I'll just flip a coin. For the lulz.
More of a clown spouting absurdities in an over the top manner. The System grew uneasy when large numbers started organizing around this stuff. The System doesn't tolerate organized resistance. This is fought by neutralizing the people's leaders.
He is still popular, just excluded from the System.
He was chosen to be the first to get sued for hurt feelings. He had been out in front, for the last 30 years, of the USG's build-up (malfeasance) to where we are now with the new world order. He was also blamed for Trump's 2016 victory which he claims he was not responsible for. - Free Masons, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, the WEF, DAARPA, and so forth.
Last Friday Alexs said that the USG is requiring mask again at airports and on planes starting in September. He hopes now that it is out in the open that they will change their minds.
And got his ass sued sky high for it and rightfully so. Jones isn’t exempted from the civil consequences of his idiotic drivel, but he does have the right to spew it.
The true definition of fascism should be the use of political force to crush dissent. Fasces were rods carried by lictors who attended Roman praetors and consuls. These guards would use the rods to beat the shit out of anyone who offended their boss. Whatever the denials of the mainstream media, that's what's happening in the West. Democracy is a sham if the government can ban dissent.
“who have offended their boss” This is the crux of the matter. Government officials who can’t stand being criticized and so they use the ruse of “hate speech” to punish the criticizer.
Yet in its time in Germany ( Weimar Republic) the word meant National Socialism, a political party headed by Hitler. It became authoritarianism during his tenure.
The laws are twisted to suit the leadership and to protect the leadership. Almost everywhere in the West now, we are experiencing the effects of a post democracy landscape that is edging ever further towards the kind of blatant corruption we previously saw in the 3rd world and fascist/communist regimes.
First, common sense is eroded. Makes it easier to then just follow orders.
My sympathies and support to C.J. - as the marvelous German EBM-ish group And One noted in their song “Life Isn’t Easy In Germany” the relationship between free expression and democracy has been an uneasy one at best in that country.
That said, can we do a fundraiser? I’d get some stickers, buttons, a bandanna as long as they include this, which sums up so much so well:
Give up your free speech at your peril. Once they are able to silence you, the game is over. All of your other freedoms will fall like dominoes after. Anyone that advocates to censor you, or to unmask your anonymity is your adversary. Treat them like one - no matter what else they say.
---
Why is it so vital and necessary for the combined monolithic apparatus of government, corporations, and NGOs, to brute force censor everyone while decimating the careers and reputations of the dissenters? Here is why:
The reason the First Amendment is prime directive order 1, is because it is the most important freedom we have for the same reason it is the first target an adversary subverts, disrupts, and destroys during a crime, a war, or a takeover—preventing a target from assembling, communicating, and organizing a response to an assault grants an enormous advantage to the aggressors.
This is and has been occurring all across the globe since the minute this COVID-19 fraud was propagated to every corner of the earth.
The Second Amendment is second because it is the remedy for anyone trying to subvert the First.
The fog of this war is purposefully thick—a massive labyrinth filled with wrong turns, dead ends, and long, interesting paths to nowhere—relentless discombobulation are important tentpoles of demoralization and destabilization.
Yuri Bezmenov tried to warn us in 1984 about the 4 stages of societal subversion:
1) Demoralization
2) Destabilization
3) Crisis
4) Normalization
COVID was the crisis, now comes the normalization.
Can you reason with a demoralized person?
https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-reason-with-a-demoralized
It was a plandemic.
Good one.
Damn, I think they forgot to demoralize me.
Cheers, fellow traveler. Just remember that when there's bad shit happening, someone is actively putting it there. Nothing comes out of the ether, especially when it is at the advantage of the oligarchy.
Yuri: No, you cannot. But, a much larger percentage of the population is aware of all the shenanigans than were before the clown show. The CDC now admits that nearly 40% of those who got the first jab never came back for the second, so a substantial majority of Americans (I calculate about 58%) are not "fully-poisoned."
The original Bezmenov was a grifter who NEVER was in KGB.
He discovered how to make a nice living in the US by endlessly feeding tales to eager public.
Current “Bezmenov” is doing the same... - one can only feel sorry for him.
But - stand with Russia -- it fights for all of us !!!
If you could spell his name right, I might take you seriously. The Yuri Bezmenov in this interview with Edward Griffin in 1968 is the one we're talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZEH2VTsd_c
Thank you. One grows weary of persistently having to debunk the obvious.
Hey Felds....what's the difference btwn 'pre-bunk' and 'debunk'?
I give up. What's the difference?
Give it some more thought. You can do it.
Thanks for saying this.
All true.
While the Communist/Authoritarian Leftist playbook never changes, more perplexing is that it always works. 110.
I think Covid was the biggest part of the destabilization. Where we are now compared to 2019 is night and day.
The crisis is not here yet.
Yep! Read that in Revelations! The end is near.
Hi John,
It seems like you're frustrated and just want to have a respectful conversation about the trends in the modern world. If that's right, I'd be happy to chat.
The objective is to silence us through intimidation. If the censors can make an example of an outspoken opponent like C.J. Hopkins, they can discourage others from following him or even reading his book. Germany doesn't have the strong protection of individual rights as are provided under the US Constitution, so they can be used as a hammer.
I was just thinking the other day, we need an 'I am Barrabas' movement.
Wondering if the only way C.J. can makes this a bigger deal (for the better) is to continue to do the same, after the fact 'the trial'.
From the text in German it does not appear that "a trial" is an option. The punishment has already been determined.
And here most people think Gilbert and Sullivan were slapstick comics. The topic is addressed in Mikado prophetically.
My optical sublime, I shall achieve in time, to let the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime...
Appeal it and make them justify their censorship.
During the trial. Incessantly.
Would be my hope.
2A is all that keeps you from being Germany or Canada, you Americans are very fortunate.
A glock vs a Marine Division?
Be serious.
And no, Americans are way too fat to be the Taleban.
It’s probably the off chance threat that nobility will get hit. It’s psychological
Ok but a glock is more persuasive than the Canadian alternative: a dirty look.
Sincerely, I think 2A is a game changer, if nothing else it is a deterrent that ups the ante
Perfect.
But regarding your statement: “ …or to unmask your anonymity is your adversary.”
Perhaps we should consider posting under our names?
I’m beginning to feel a bit of the coward for not declaring my position.
2nd amendment history lesson is in order.
Lance: Here is a bit of that lesson:
“What is a militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual to enslave them.”
—George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights
“The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
—Joseph Storey, 1833, U.S. Supreme Court justice
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . .disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
—Thomas Jefferson’s commonplace book, 1774-1776, quoting from “On Crimes and Punishment” (1764) by criminologist Cesare Beccaria
In addition it was well-understood by the founders that the phrase “a well-regulated militia” meant a militia that was trained and practiced in the use of weapons, not one under the thumb of the biblical-length book of federal regulations.
A bit of "real" history to counter your "fake" history. Recommend tapping into the link below. Makes for interesting and illuminating reading.
“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum."
"...There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision."
“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Hit the link and keep on going...
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
How the fuck do you know what "was well-understood by the founders?"
Answer: you don't.
Excellent argument against gun control legislation.
If litigators and judges who support the second amendment do not know what the founders were thinking, and therefore can not make rulings based on what they believe the framers were thinking, then, conversely, neither can those who wish to legislate away second amendment rights.
This means that the best approach is to let the status quo remain.
Brilliant! You have single-handedly laid to rest the entire gun control debate!
I'm not for gun control legislation. I'm for abolishing the 2nd amendment.
Oh, so we don’t have to take you seriously, then. You should have just said so from the start. Luckily, what you want doesn’t mean fuck all. Millions of us own firearms, even those scary “assault rifles,” and there’s not a goddamn thing you can do about it.
That and the oh so sacred founders were flawed human beings with a very very very limited understanding of the world and how it works.
Wouldn't that then mean that those involved in the gun control debate, on both sides, are also very, very flawed human beings?
And wouldn't that then extend to their flawed rulings?
So then what's the point of even trying to litigate it?
My comments are about treating them, or anyone, as infallible or the last word on this subject or any other.
Not talking about taken anyone's gun away, hx lesson is in order
Yes, but it's currently 2023.
Germany does not have free speech. Neither does my country, Canada.
What exactly do you mean by "Covid-19 fraud" ?
SARS-CoV2 is dangerous to almost no one - and they knew it nearly from the the start:
https://tritorch.com/covidKillRate [image]
https://tritorch.com/CDCIFR2020 [image]
In September 2020, this was the CDC's best estimate for the COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate by Age Group:
0-19 years old: 0.00003
20-49 years old: 0.0002
50-69 years old: 0.005
70+ years old: 0.054
Meaning all of this was based on a lie:
the masks ● the social distancing ● the lockdowns ● the economic and farming destruction ● the mental and physical health destruction ● the arrested development of millions of children ● the myriad of preventable suicides ● the bevy of new, rushed, and barely tested vaccines
They had a practice run in 2009: https://youtu.be/Gs-DBOFWCpc [3.31mins]
Pass that along to the 7 million dead and 770,000,000 infected. I'm certain they'll be charmed by your interest
Let’s see 770 million divided by 7 million...yup. Still under 1%. And even THAT number is “with COVID” not “from COVID.”
Oh, even if the numbers were 100 times worse there is no justification for silencing citizens. Sod off, Chicken Little.
But just one death justifies the campaign of lies, slander, censorship, and the retardation of a generation of schoolchildren! How can you be so insensitive?!?!?
Blow me.
Many of them will no doubt be surprised to discover they, in fact, died of Covid.
Now, I sincerely doubt THAT.
There is a HUGE difference between dying FROM Covid and dying WITH Covid. It's been total propaganda from the start. The initial estimated fatality rate was 3%. Masks were ineffective, then masks were effective. Everyone should travel, come to Chinatown, then stay in your house and don't go anywhere. The vaccine is dangerous, if Trump is for it then I'm against it, then get the vaccine and all the boosters or you're an enemy of the state. These draconian mandates caused deaths, people died following ridiculous policies. This is clearly Marxist normalization. I am quite certain that the 7 million dead will be charmed by your interest and your support of policies that killed people. And I am also quite certain of who are and aren't advocates for the Death Cult.
Beat it.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/science-fiction-the-crisis-in-research/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=WEEK%20%2020230810%20%20AL+CID_833d18d0c0793efbf27885be419ad723
Always defend your right to express yourself. Without it, you are a dog waiting to be beat
Well put.
Ok. But all the amendments had to be forced upon The Authors. Why are We all always so shocked and dismayed that we have (and always have had) to fight for them? They were never intended to be honored or to last this long.
Because they thought the it was stupid to need a list of things the govt. cannot take from you when the entire logical construct of the preceding text contains the entirety of the universe of accepted govt. power.
"You can only do these things. Nothing more."
"Okay but what about this?"
But we are stupid, so it was certainly fortuitous we ended up with this thing we shouldn't have ever needed but for the craven stupidity of man.
Question: when are they going to take a run at Substack? They aren’t going to allow us to continue are they?
You'll be fine, Diamond Boy, just fine.
Thank you, Matt! As I said when we spoke, my case is just one of many, many examples of this kind of naked crackdown on dissent and political opposition, and blatant disregard for the rule of law that old farts like me were brought up to believe governed our democratic societies, and protected the people from the arbitrary exercise of power by our governments.
Your work is a treasure, sir. We wish you all the best, and we sincerely thank you for taking one for the team and fighting the noble fight. This will serve as a lightning rod to the critical importance of speech!
Mr. Hopkins, you may be old, but your ideas are older, and will outlive the challenges of this era.
CJ - In addition to buying the book, what can we do to help you?
You're doing it. Thank you! And you can stay up to date with my columns on my Substack with a free or paid subscription. More important is to spread the word about this kind of thing, which is happening in many countries, not just in Germany.
My grandfather was the youngest superior court judge (‘Senats President’, I believe), in Weimar Germany. He got out a week before the knock on the door. Sixty years later, his youngest daughter, living in Washington State, told me these words of his: „Das Gesetz ist meine beruf, aber die Gerechtigkeit ist meine Pflicht.“
“The law is my profession but justice is my duty.”
How he would have laughed to learn that the suppression of past crimes is carried out using the tactics of past criminals.
We must remain in solidarity. Our ideas define us, but only our numbers can protect us.
"Senatspräsident" could be correct. Depends on what level he was as a judge. That term was discontinued a long time ago, but in the 1920s/30s wuold still have been in use. Lucky for him to get out! Nice statement from him.
Thanks for that. I was a child when I last saw him, and never saw his title written. B
His youngest daughter, my mother, died ten years ago today. How odd to calculate that he was born not that long after America’s civil war. And so little has changed.
My paternal grandmother was born in the US in 1897 but spoke German as a first language. According to her, they didn't teach my dad German in the late 30s-early 40s because at the time, speaking German was frowned upon in the US (they were in Wisconsin).
My grandmother died 30 years ago, but that story (true or not) comes back to me often during the last years of #Russiagate, where just being Russian, or people thinking you're Russian, or even that you have contacts to Russians, makes you questionable as an American.
Sadly you're so right. So little has changed. We are still a violent, jingoistic nation.
We have FOUR good men in PRISON in Canada for being involved in the completely PEACEFUL Truckers Freedom March. They are guilty before being proven innocent and have been jailed for over 545 days with NO DUE PROCESS. How is this possible in what used to be a FREE COUNTRY?
We have one good woman facing a long court proceeding and a sentence of 10 YEARS in prison simply for helping organize the completely peaceful Freedom March across Canada. She is not permitted to use Facebook or any social media and cannot talk to any of the other organizers. Because she stood up to the tyrant Trudeau.
The current government is out of control with their attempts AT control. You are right. These “examples” are being made around the world. Trudeau and his father have tried to take Canadians legal hunting/sport shooting guns on many attempts. They will not succeed.
Stay safe, you have committed no crime. We all see exactly what is going on. They are making an example of you, believing it will keep the rest of us in line. Not gonna happen this time.
Same thing has and is happening with environmental and indigenous activists in Canada. Sadly, this is nothing new. Only now the legal process seems to be more drawn out as a punishment for those that challenge government. On the bright side those that are freedom lovers do win at times. About one thousand arrests of Fairy Creek Old Growth protesters were thrown out in British Columbia recently.
I supported the Truck Convoy cause I love freedom. Freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of speech are vitally important.
So true and so sobering. To raise our kids into this, after knowing the joys of personal freedoms. The Darkening Age..
Thank you Matt, for featuring this
story.
I also follow Eugyppius. Did he feature you yet?
https://substack.com/@eugyppius?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Hey CJ wtf as Matt said.
This is frightening.....
Could YOU sum up in a word or two who’s behind this insanity . 😹
Just found you on substack- unpaid for now 👻
Your conviction would be handed down by a local court (Amtsgericht).
You can appeal on points of fact and law (Berufung) to the regional court (Landgericht).
After that there would still be the possibility for an appeal on points of law (Revision) to the higher regional court (Kammergericht).
Even if the state ultimately loses, they've made their point.
Maybe they have but the point is Hopkins won.
No, even a win is a loss.
It's lawfare: the process is the punishment.
Exactly. The message is: Don't step out of line because even if you didn't technically break any laws, we can take your time and money to make you prove your innocence. And even if you win, there is no recompense.
Just like the congress did to Matt.
Yes and then it is up to the Press to include this.
Jennifer, most of the press is complicit in the silencing of dissent. That is perhaps the scariest part of all of this, the fact that there is no effective press coverage of this and other similar outrages.
I agree BUT the left (always been a socialist) is doing the exact same thing?
My subscription automatically renews in about a week, so hopefully that helps. I think we're past the 2 Neos, or Neo-conservative and Neo-liberal, to straight up Neo-authoritarianism. If you get a chance, look up the case of Scott Ritter, whose YouTube channel, highly critical of US policy on Ukraine, was deleted without warning for "hate speech" not specified. Ritter's very intense but also quite humorous, a kind of real life "Walter" from the "Big Lebowski." The Monster known as the "Criminalization of Dissent" has emerged from its Cave and is waving its Lawless club in the Streets. I would say "God Help Us!," but I'm a non-practicing atheist, etc...
As I'm sure you've heard before, God loves you. 😇
More than a bit creepy that this is the Germans, who have a somewhat unfortunate history of blindly following authority.
If you want to arrest somebody, you nuts, start with Scholz, for treason for serving foreign interests to the massive detriment of Germans.
It's not the Germans. It's the entire Western world. Britain/Canada/Australia/NZ don't even pretend to value free speech anymore. We've clearly seen the American govt aggressively attacking social media to prevent dissent. The new EU social media law (DSA) is certainly going to crush digital speech in Europe. Western values are under attack.
What you are forgetting is that the education here in France is good. NO in the US.
And yet the French ruling classes obediently follow the US diktat.
Stop kidding yourself.
Yes because we have Macron.
Any other leader that would be acceptable to the French and European political classes would be equally submissive.
I am not kidding myself but unlike the US we would be out in the streets if Le Pen got in!
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
That said, I will note that the French ruling classes will do whatever takes to prevent anyone not entirely subservient to the Atlanticist consensus from getting into the Champ d'Elysee.
you guys are out on the streets if McDonald's runs out of pomme frittes
Jennifer: Aren't you already out in the streets with Macron?
Even if she won a free and fair election?
(do they have those in France?)
I don't understand your point. You can't even use Rumble in France. Yet you aren't in the streets. The DSA will curtail your digital speech further. Will you be in the streets?
Don't need any of these things!
Rumble bailed on France when the French government banned Russian News (propaganda) outlets.
Muttman: That "history of blindly following authority" is a result of the Prussian form of schooling, which is designed to crush the spirit, imagination, intellect, and critical thinking skills of the whole population of children, to make them obedient and docile. This was developed in the second half of the 19th Century, as large-scale industry was beginning to develop, and the oligarchs at the time needed obedient, docile, unthinking workers to do the shit jobs for long hours. This system was then imported to the U.S. by our own home-grown oligarchs, and spread throughout the country by the early 20th Century. See John Taylor Gatto's "Weapons of Mass Instruction" for a full history of this crime against children. I am convinced that the major reason for the cultural rot and economic collapse we are witnessing is schooling. Contrary to what many believe, the purpose of schooling is not only not education, but it is anti-educational. Public schools, private schools, charter schools,.nearly any kind of school is simply damaging to children.
I have read J.T. Gatto's critique of US public schools, and it's an eye-opener, especially the history and the creepy philosophies of the early leaders of public schooling.
However, I went to public schools in Chicago and a Western Suburb from Headstart in 1966 through high school in 1978 and was always encouraged to think independently and read widely/deeply. The only thing anywhere close to anything like state propaganda was in the now-extinct Civics class, which praised American exceptionalism while teaching how the Republic is designed to work.
So I did not personally experience the allegedly deadening effect of public schooling. Quite the opposite, in fact.
There are now people literally wandering streets in the US wearing rebreathers to save themselves from COVID. Blindly following authority after a sufficient level of terrorist propaganda is inevitable. Combine it with decades of education specifically designed to create that urge for obedience to authority, as has been the norm in the US since 1984, and trying to pigeonhole that response is counterfactual.
What these authorities seem to be oblivious to is that they’re proving your point: no one is allowed to criticize them (those with the power to set the rules) or point out flaws in their assertions. The message is loud and clear — disagree at your own peril.
I'm an American living "next door" in Austria. I've been watching uneasily as Austria over the decades slides closer to NATO and farther from its constitutional neutrality. I can only imagine what it is like in US occupied Germany!
Fortunately, NATO and particularly the US jumped the shark with the coup->civil war in Ukraine. When the war ends there will be a backlash against NATO and particuarly the US. How big/far it will go is the big question.
Good luck to you getting out. I didn't know you before, but anyone Taibbi supports can't be a completely bad. I have subscribed on Substack to get to know you.
We’ve got your back, CJ ✊
• https://substack.com/@margaretannaalice/note/c-38899653
Blatant disregard for the law... Sounds like the mantra of the elitest 1%ers
Where would we send financial support?
I have been talked into setting up a sort of legal defense fund, and will post about that shortly, tomorrow, hopefully. In the meantime, there's info here: https://cjhopkins.com/contact/
Ironically, the actions of the German government more closely mirror their ruling party in the early 1940s.
Are you under the impression the German courts gassed CJ Hopkins? If not what on earth are you talking about?
Actually they more resemble Germany since Arminius/Hermanric and Teutoburger Wald in 8 CE. Or Charlemagne in Saxony or any number of German kings, nobles and imperials post-Roman Empire West.
America’s never been much for knowing the history of anything for fear of discovering, no doubt, that this nation-state is no more manifestly destined to be a chosen and peculiar people than the former villagers and nobles of the villages inundated by the Black Sea a few millennia ago.
Those on the left will justify CJ's punishment and at the same time their own comparisons of Trump to Hitler because Trump is "literally Hitler", am I right?
Kudos to CJ for acknowledging the free speech implications of the Trump indictments here in the US-and thank you to Taibbi for having Racket offer to pay his fine-that’s the kind of thing I appreciate from my subscription $.
I used to subscribe to his Substack and enjoyed his posts, but even a year or more ago I knew he was skating on thin ice. I used to shake my head and mutter, "Dude, you live in Germany, a country that has not had freedom of speech or even thought since 1933."
He's an American. Expat Americans should not confuse their host countries' alleged enthusiasm for free speech with America's statutory protections. The USA is the only country where free speech is (mostly) protected, and it is hard (on purpose) to remove those statutory protections.
If he wanted to post counter-narrative rants, there is only one place in the world where he could do that without risk of prosecution. Hopkins knew that, or should have.
Edit: Just re-read that and it sounds harsh, though I'll leave it up. I'm not suggesting Hopkins deserves his treatment or anything like that. After all, I agree with almost everything he says. But the things he says cannot be safely said outside the USA. He's not the first in Europe to be prosecuted for what in this country is protected speech. His martyrdom will not change that; most right-thinking Germans will agree with his prosecution, as would most right-thinking French, Dutch, Spanish, etc. Maybe even most right-thinking British.
So, what you are saying also is Americans better keep up this fight no matter the consequences or the whole world is silenced. I don't think people appreciate this fact enough.
It's the point. The WEF is the west now. They've conquered the EU, Canada, and Australia, and are trying to break the US. They are just about there. One more pandemic or tragic event and 15 minute cities and taxes on automobiles will be everywhere. I give it 7 years. 50% of the US will go gladly, and the sad part is that most of that 50% are the most highly educated people in the history of the world, yet still dumber than a 12th century peasant.
Yeah. What I've learned from my overly educated son is that we have alot of educated people who are educated very specifically in one subject. They aren't well rounded and have very little real-world intelligence. Not all, but he tells me it's a high percentage. He was lucky enough to grow up with middle-class parents who taught him life skills along with his high priced papers. As in, he can change his own damn oil. Ha! I do think Americans are on a very slippery slope. Fortunately, if our separation of powers stays intact, it won't go that far. However, I sure hope some of us stand up no matter so that we don't leave that kind of world (no hope) to future generations. Without free speech, there is no true freedom.
I don't care if you don't want to change your own oil, or call Roadside for your tire... I would like kids that have just graduated from college to be able to calculate Sales tax or a tip without an app. I'd take just simple things.
You are preaching to the choir! 😂 Apparently, today's Bachelor's Degree is yesterday's High school Diploma. I'm with you.
Excellent point about the specialized nature of higher education and yet it still produces many idiots in even their chosen fields.
My grandad was a self taught engineer in the 1930s (thanks to Canada’s work camps) and ended up working in a city engineering department post WWII.
The Sydney Harbour Bridge (completed in 1932) thanks to the excellent work of engineers and workers has had almost no bolts replaced in the bridge. Most of the maintenance has been regarding the paint.
When I was in Cape Town a local artist pointed out in his exhibition that few residents of the city today would have survived in the region thousands of years ago.
I know. I think about how America was built, especially as the Industrial age set in. I've watched those documentaries. Are those people still alive in us? I hope so, but am not so sure.
Ah, very good, an entrepreneurial Racket News Conspiracy Theorist rocking the 15-Minute conspiracy theory, hard-memed by the indefatigable Doctor-Professor Jordan "Dazed-and-Confused" Peterson.
"...This 15-minute-city focus on creating lively, people-friendly neighborhoods was a “perversion,” claimed Canadian psychologist turned hard-right culture warrior Jordan Peterson in a tweet that garnered 7.5 million views. “Idiot tyrannical bureaucrats,” he declared, would henceforth “decide by fiat where you’re ‘allowed’ to drive,” as if city traffic departments have not done this very thing for at least the last hundred years."
When will the authorities take pity on the poor good Doctor-Professor, bring his public misery to an end, wrap him tightly in fresh, white bed linens and cart him off to one of those places where they house poor souls who have just been wrapped tightly in fresh, white bed linens?
No likes. Sorry.
I know, right? Jesus. What am I? A leper? Bill---go samaritan on me, take some pity on a shunned Racket News commenter, and giv'em a "like." Your good deed for the day. Come on. Do it.
Yes, and I also feel a bit like a shit pointing out that Hopkins knew he was taking his chances by operating in Germany, because after all people have to take a stand, take risks, to make change.
I guess what I'm responding to is the sense of outrage and surprise I'm seeing. It's not really that surprising to me, is all.
No. I actually think it's important for people (especially in the US) to understand this can become a way of life and a common, expected outcome. I believe he should speak. I imagine you believe the same. It's important to point out what becomes an everyday expectation when we no longer have the right to speak.
I think the sense of outrage and surprise is because most of us posting are coming from an American perspective, where such things are antithetical to our way of thinking about free speech.
BUT you don't have free speech.
I watch the comments on WAPO and many are taken off.
Then the commentator comes on and says I have tried to post this message 3 times.
Don't kid yourselves.........you do not have free speech.
WAPO deleting your posts from their website is not a violation of your free speech rights. You don’t have the right to force the WAPO to listen to what you have to say
A totalitarian state is OK as long as it's privatized.
You have to consider the ethical stance of the Post--they're propagandists for the regime and will suck up to and defend the system of bureaucratic power and influence they have come to rely on for prestige and support.
They are not the only player in the game, though.
Oh yes I know this but from a psychological point of view the comments give me a wide view of what people think.
Drives me mad.
Correct. Being unsurprised does not connote advocacy.
You're fine.
For sure, the US is last post. There's nowhere to flee for freedom if we lose to the totalitarians.
As someone living in the UK, I'm watching the EU's continuing attack on Free Speech with disgust. The Digital Services Act defines disinformation as "anything we don't like" and provides powers to suppress it. Of course, if a "crisis" is declared, those EU powers become even greater... and guess who gets to define when something becomes a "crisis" ? The EU.
As an American who lived in the UK at the tail end of the Troubles, who admired the grit, determination and easy good humor of my hosts, I am completely dismayed by what has happened there since 2001.
And from what I’ve read, Australia is headed for the most oppressive laws against free speech in the free world
As an immigrant from the UK I believed everything that was said about freedom of speech in America: I have it, no one can interfere with it. As a lawyer, I began almost every brief, motion or other pleading with a relevant citation to either the US Constitution or the State Constitution, sometimes both. They were inviolate. No more. Dangerous times.
We have a Bill of Rights, based on natural law-above any specific government. Brits have “rights” granted at the discretion of whatever upper class twit, to quote Monty Python.
The English produced the Bill of Rights of 1689, maybe the first such legislation in history. Our boys had a century to think about how to improve it, and I think they did a pretty good job. The Bill of Rights of 1689 is still (mostly) part of the British Constitution.
Great reference. An incredibly valuable document for many reasons, you hitting on what I believe the single most one.
To few have been exposed to the importance of the millennia of developing Anglo-American legal traditions. We learn the Brits were bad guys from 1770-1815. Then nothing until 1941 when they are the good guys.
The day that DDE was made SAC marked the first time in history that the dominant power in the West changed hands voluntarily and peacefully (the change, not the catalyst for it).
Anyway, excellent comment.
It’s part of a collective tradition, but it doesn’t specifically guarantee rights outside the purview/consent of government. The governments grants the rights in GB, the government must respect/acknowledge the rights in the USA.
Irish grit or Brit grit?
I am watching the UK.......give me a break.
Official Secrets Act!
I am so sick of this bullshit argument. Familiarize yourself with German law. Germany has free-speech protections (written into its Grundgesetz) like most Western countries, and the ban on displaying Nazi imagery, and the exceptions to the ban (i.e., when it is permissible), are clearly articulated. Seriously, all you are doing is increasing people's ignorance.
I apologize. I admit I do not know the specific ins and outs of German law.
But I do know this: Germany, like every other country except the US, regulates political speech. And that's all the camel's nose needed to go after any counter-narrative voices. They are not coming after you because you violated some minor clause of this or that national law, they are doing so because you are their enemy, pure and simple. And the two simplest tools they have to attack you are a controlled media and a controlled judiciary.
Hey, same as we have here in America! But we also have the First Amendment, so it's a little more difficult for them here. They can (and have) silenced Americans, in some media, but it's gonna be much harder to get a prosecution in the absence of laws governing political speech.
As I said, I used to be a subscriber (maybe paid? I had a lot more paid subscriptions back in the day, I had to cut back!). I enjoyed your posts. I watched you during interviews. I am sympathetic with what is happening to you now, I agree it's bullshit. Be even back then, I remember shaking my head and thinking, "How is he going on like that in Continental Europe? At a time when even Canada is shutting down the bank accounts of political enemies and their sympathizers?"
If they are truly bullshit charges, I'm sure you will prevail in the courts, because Germany is a free and just nation of laws. Right?
Sorry to jump down your neck. I'm not in the best of moods. The US 1st Amendment is absolutely stronger than the European speech protections, but they do exist. Research Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is what most European countries have incorporated into their laws and constitutions.
And I'm sorry I even posted! As I mentioned elsewhere, I think what I'm responding to is the sense of outrage and surprise, and I just didn't find it very surprising outcome, not in Germany. Shitty, but not surprising.
But on reflection, we need people to take a stand, to take risks, to make a point. I just will never ask anyone else to be that guy, not if I'm not willing to do it myself.
Regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, let’s look at Article 19. It’s very well-written, clear and concise:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Clearly any country that prohibits “hate speech,” as most European countries and Canada do, is not following this unambiguous declaration.
Maybe they are using Article 29 as a Get Out of Jail Free Card. So anything goes.
Mitch, please don't be sorry for posting. Your insights (painful though they are) have helped move this conversation forward.
I agree. As an American, I am learning so much from this exchange.
EU Human Rights law is worthless and counts for nothing. It may sound superficially like the Bill of Rights but the entire process is deeply ideological. ECHR had nothing to say about lockdowns, but has everything to say about the rights of illegal immigrants. The UK may soon leave the ECHR for this reason.
Why would the ECHR address lockdowns?
A concept of human rights that has nothing to say about mass imprisonment, shutdowns of businesses and civic life, systematic government-led censorship and making it mandatory to take experimental drugs is clearly not worth the paper it's written on. Violations of human rights are always justified by doing something for the greater collective good, so by not opposing these actions it showed that the ECHR is just yet another way to encode specific ideological preferences in institutions by pretending they will be fairly applied.
I've read the EU Human Rights. They are a joke because those in charge can and do slap any caveat they want on a 'right'. They do it all the time. In the US it's also become iffy. Case in point "InfoWars and Alex Jones". That verdict has never been challenged and it took a big chunk out of our 1st Amendment. It is all going to be down hill from now on.
Was Article 19 invoked by your legal team?
The New Hampshire Supreme Court basically ruled that the Justice people do not have to know their on laws can claim ignorance of the law. In my case, suing the state of New Hampshire.
Frost v Banking and AG Office 2012
Actually, that ruling makes perfect sense considering it's New Hampshire.
Is that a natural right in German Law, or a right that is bestowed by the German government? Curious.
The article includes several examples of books that bear swastika images offered for sale in Germany.
Strangely, none of the authors are prosecuted for hate crimes. Must be an oversight. I'm sure that right now the German authorities are preparing charges against Mel Brooks for making "The Producers".
One of the reasons the Founders inserted statutory protections for speech is because they realized how unevenly potential anti-speech laws were likely to be enforced, They would be wielded against perceived enemies of the ruling claque, while anyone else gets a pass. It has ever been so.
Note, for example, the uneven enforcement of "ToS violations" on America's social media platforms.
"In the Garden of Beasts" by Eric Larsen was first published in 2011.
Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin. Set in Berlin in 1933-1934, the book tells the story of America's first ambassador to Nazi Germany, William E. Dodd, and his daughter Martha, as they experience the rising terror of Hitler's rule.
A very interesting a book, especially how the American president re-acted to the reports from his ambassador about the precarious conditions in Germany.
After witnessing the wholesale demonization and ostracism of the unvaccinated here in the US, I am no longer quite as mystified by what happened in Germany in the 1930s. I watched something similar happen here, with Americans, with my own eyes.
Exactly.
Agreed, good book. It effectively illustrates how Germany was slowly, then suddenly strangled by Hitler, while lots of "good" people just went about their business and did nothing about it. The proverbial slow boil of a frog. I wish Larsen's writing style wasn't so annoying though.
I got a lifetime ban for political speech on a website run by physicists. They had all these rules but in actual practice anything they liked was OK and anything they didn't like was not OK.
I got banned for saying American exceptionalism meant the USA considered itself above the law. I thought it was a basic fact everyone knew.
We’re governed by the rule of law.
So they say.
He wrote tweets. Is Twitter a German company? He wrote a book. Was it published in Germany? Or was it published in the U.S? Because Germany prosecuting an American seems the same insanity as the U.S. prosecuting an Australian. We live in clown world where anything goes, I guess.
He was in Germany when he made those tweets. There are people in German prisons for denying the Holocaust.
If a Dutchman is arrested in, say, Alabama for smoking pot, he's going to jail, no matter how things are back in Amsterdam.
A Dutchman who is smoking pot in Alabama is doing so in the real world. Posting tweets is on the internet and not out in public. It makes zero sense.
It would still make zero sense if he wrote in chalk on a sidewalk in Berlin. Government suppression of speech always makes zero sense and is always wrong, whatever the jurisdictional issues might be.
I agree it's wrong, but how does it make "zero sense" for a country to enforce the laws that have been duly and legally enacted? Isn't that a feature of national sovereignty?
Yes, but one would hope that the laws would be transparent and evenly applied.
A homeowner in Seattle wrote in chalk outside a judge's house on the sidewalk during the foreclosure crimes of 2008. The Court sent the U.S. Marshalls to houses of homeowners who were defending their homes in court. The words, apparently, we not threatening any violence toward the judiciary.
If the facts are as you described, that made zero sense and was wrong.
It's still illegal.
I have another angle on that. In addition to free speech, we here in the US (also uniquely) enjoy a statutory protection for possession of firearms. And I possess over 100 of them. However, if I was caught in Germany with an AR-15 and prosecuted, I wouldn't be very surprised, and I would expect to see very few expressions of sympathy or surprise from, well, from anyone (hell, I can't even take an AR-15 fifteen miles up the road into California).
The only reason I have so many guns is because I live in the US. If I lived in, say, France (where I once attempted to emigrate) I wouldn't have any guns at all, probably.
And I would be much more careful about what I posted on the Internet.
Again, if you had an AR-15 in Germany that would be a PHYSICAL thing. What this American did was post to the international internet company based in the U.S.........just words. Nothing physical, not a German tweet. Not a German company.
I’m sorry, but I’m really having trouble understanding your objection. What difference does “physical” make? What if he had posted child porn? What if he had emailed explicit threats of violence?
I completely agree that the German law about Nazi symbology is an unambiguous and counterproductive restriction on speech and would never fly in the U.S. because of the first amendment. And I agree furthermore that this particular application of it is counter to the original intent of the law, and is an attempt to stifle speech that is counter to the preferred narrative for reasons completely unrelated to that original intent, and it is selective prosecution to boot in light of the array of similar uses of the symbology described in this post. Shame on them for that.
But WTF is this business about whether the violation is “physical”?
BTW, besides the point, but an AR-15 is legal in Germany if you have a hunting license or if your using it for sport.
I know. But in very narrow circumstances, and I suspect the rules are different for foreigners (as they are here). Anyway, if I showed up at Munich Airport with an AR-15 in my luggage, things would not go well for me. Which is why I won't take an AR-15 to Germany (or even California).
NO it is not!
Free speech in the UK. I live in Texas but have a pal in London. He is on the other side of the political fence but he and I never debate facts, we discuss what is to be done about them. Then we disagree and makes jokes about how difficult it IS NOT to be friendly in disagreement. This was mostly around 15 years ago when we were both in our mid-30s.
He is a strong human rights supporter, so am I. His view is that gov't intervention is necessary to preserve them. I agree in specific circumstances, some times, but mostly think that gov't IS the problem.
There is one point of disagreement I could never reconcile. For all of his support for human rights he adopts a patriarchal stance on speech. Some things, he argues, should not be protected speech even if true. These almost entirely focused on nazis. If one is a nazi one should have no right to speak about it (censoring based on identity of the speaker and their message). One, not a nazi, could never say anything that might be confused with approval, whether it be true or not, the comment or the approval (censoring based on content and/or a perceived positive value judgment).
I'd argue that exposing stupidity to the light of day was the easiest way to make it whither. He'd argue that some thoughts are very bad and giving them voice is too dangerous.
I'd counter, control of information is the cornerstone of autocracy. He'd respond with previous comment. At the end of the day, he was willing to take the risks that censorship brings rather than allow that particular brand of horror to be given any press.
...and THAT is why our forefathers' left England. Texas 1, London 0.
I could be wrong but I feel like this new (to me, anyhow) view of certain speech as some kind of self-evident (to them) light switch (dog whistle?) that engages a dangerous new Fascism is purely an artifact, intentional or not, of marxist/communist propaganda.
It is such a facile, nonsense stance I just don't understand how it is so pervasive.
Remind your friend censorship of Hitler by the state immediately preceded his popularity.
He’s a smart man and needs no reminding. But that’s the thing. He’s smart, he believes in free speech, excepting the Hitler stuff. (Haven’t talked since covid so it would be interesting where he came down on that.)
The fact that he allows for exceptions isn’t a matter of how smart or well informed he is. It is a matter, near as I can tell, if him accepting a false virtue and paternalistic view (which oddly enough is infantilizing in practice).
He drank the Kool-Ade.
American statutory protections is but an illusion that has already gone by the wayside as a childish hope. Evidenced by the new statutory protections for wall-e world adult children :
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of reach."
"Lawful but awful."
Welcome to reality....
Freedom of speech even here in America is not what it once was.
Mitch, your warning re: the minimal protections for freedom of speech in Germany and elsewhere is on point and timely.
100%
If the authoritarian left in America has its way C. J. won’t be protected there either.
This is an example of how different Germany is from the US: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/christian-dettmar-the-weimar-judge
"But the things he says cannot be safely said outside the USA."
Oh I think he would be all right in Mali, Niger, or Burkina Faso. Many other countries -- most? -- would not care a foop what he said about masks. I don't see that Reunion Island or Paraguay would be involved in such things. They don't have a System that has nothing better to do than worry about such trivialities.
And I don't see why you're so sure it would be OK in the USA. The Constitution is for the most part a dead letter, a fig leaf. Only the sections that are vigorously defended are followed.
Nobody is scared of the actual tweet, they're punishing him because they can -- and as a message to anybody else who might dare speak out.
The proper time to complain about this was when Alex Jones was getting banned from social media.
Agreed. Since Jones was banned, nothing that has happened since has been surprising to me.
I was surprised at the time at how little outcry there was. Whatever one may think of Jones, his offenses are small potatoes compared to the Nazi party marching in Skokie...
They are trying to set a precedent.
Alex Jones-who disseminated false information and abused the parents of murdered children.
Quashing of speech is a bad thing, but lionizing Alex Jones is despicable.
He's not lionizing him. He's stating that you have to defend the most despicable in order to keep the right to speech for everyone.
The reason they go after the despicable is because halfwits think it acceptable to do so. Slippery slope then.
Yup, this was Ira Glasser's argument for defending the Nazis' right to march in Skokie, Illinois back when the ACLU was worth a shit.
Re: Scuba Cat
Agreed, back when the ACLU leadership (Glasser and Nadine Strossen) had free-speech chops. These days one of its most high-profile lawyers has publicly advocated for the suppression of a book that offended his sensibilities -- and he wasn't summarily canned.
“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all” — Noam Chomsky
“I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake” — Thomas More (as channeled by screenwriter Robert Bolt in "A Man for All Seasons"
I think the ACLU was co-opted, a casualty of the long march through the institutions. Also, though I agree with the quote, I'm disappointed in Chomsky. Mostly for saying the "unvaxxed" needed to be removed from society, but also for being pals with Jeffrey Epstein.
Pitiful about Chomsky’s Vaxxx position, trashed his credibility..
Yes, that comment about the unvaxxed was a shocker. The connection with Epstein is less so: Epstein cultivated famous people and intellectuals as a cover (and maybe because they were interesting). That didn't necessarily includ sexual favors. Chomsky was a bit careless about it, though.
💯🏆
I wish I could hit the like button to your post a thousand times.
Alex Jones has the right to say whatever he wants, and to be held civilly liable for any damages his speech causes. At no time was he in danger of state action against his freedom (unless they charge him with perjury, which is a separate matter).
I think the law is in its infancy on whether social media is the "public square", but for now they are private businesses that have the right to refuse service to anyone.
I think the law is in its infancy on whether social media is the "public square", but for now they are private businesses that have the right to refuse service to anyone.
------------
This has been disproven repeatedly in the Twitter Files, which show how government is dictating censorship on basically every issue of the day.
Really? Is that what he’s saying, that Jones is the most despicable?
I'll let him confirm, but would put shedloads of money on it.
You would win.
Weak.
If corporate media was held to the standard they are using to persecute Jones, there would be no corporate media. It's ridiculous to pretend Jones is the worst of anything in media.
“The trouble about fighting for human freedom,” Mencken remarked once, “is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons-of-bitches; for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
---------
You'll note I said nothing at all about Jones as a person, only that people who understood where this was going were fighting for his right to be an idiot, asshole, wrong, or any combination of the three.
The civil suit against Alex set a new standard that will be the undoing of our legal system. No one said anything because of comments like the ones posted here. The default position of most people is "you support HIM".
USG has already given us "Hate Crimes". Next will be "Hate Speech". Then "Hate Thoughts". They can do this because for 60 plus years we've been taught to ignore reason and react only with emotions in a cult-like manner.
“ The civil suit against Alex set a new standard that will be the undoing of our legal system.”
Bullshit. Jones got sued for defamation. A defendant in a defamation suit has more than enough First Amendment protection. It’s extremely difficult to win a defamation case, in part because the defendant is afforded so much Constitutional protection (I’ve brought a few defamation cases as a lawyer — you need a very strong case to prevail).
Jones lost for good reasons. He was not sued for the equivalent committing a “hate crime.” He lost because he smeared the plaintiffs’ reputations with intentional lies about facts, not opinions.
Smeared reputations.....
Yes. The primary issue in a defamation case is that the defendant made false statements about the plaintiff which harmed the plaintiff’s reputation. What’s your point?
I am going to take this opportunity to speak up for the ill-informed. To my knowledge I have never read anything published by the Alex Jones of whom you post. Haven't sought him out; can't say I know anything about him. Apparently, he didn't need to be censored for a certain population to have passed him by.
It is really all about messaging --- to the rest of us.
How many times have you had to post that quote in Substack comments over the years? A dozen? More?
More for sure. And I'll keep posting it until people understand it! I don't stick up for Trump because I think he's a wonderful person -- I stick up for him because he's being indicted by his political enemies twisting government into their own attack force.
I had two chances to vote for Trump and both times I insisted I don't vote for clowns. But following recent events he has my (swing state) vote in 2024.* And I know there are a lot of Americans who feel the same way.
* Unless RFK jr is also on the ballot; then I'll just flip a coin. For the lulz.
I always have thought that a man’s integrity is defined by how he treats those he doesn’t like.
Then the remedy is a civil suit foe defamation and/or invasion of privacy. Not censorship.
Alex Jones was chosen for a reason, because nobody wants to be seen defending a loon like him.
I never knew who Jones was, but seems he was both popular and nasty at the same time.
More of a clown spouting absurdities in an over the top manner. The System grew uneasy when large numbers started organizing around this stuff. The System doesn't tolerate organized resistance. This is fought by neutralizing the people's leaders.
He is still popular, just excluded from the System.
He was chosen to be the first to get sued for hurt feelings. He had been out in front, for the last 30 years, of the USG's build-up (malfeasance) to where we are now with the new world order. He was also blamed for Trump's 2016 victory which he claims he was not responsible for. - Free Masons, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, the WEF, DAARPA, and so forth.
Last Friday Alexs said that the USG is requiring mask again at airports and on planes starting in September. He hopes now that it is out in the open that they will change their minds.
And got his ass sued sky high for it and rightfully so. Jones isn’t exempted from the civil consequences of his idiotic drivel, but he does have the right to spew it.
Nazis marching in Skokie, IL. Look it up.
If people can’t speak truth to power, if they can’t criticize those in charge, then all other rights are meaningless. This is scary.
So let me get this straight, a journalist was punished for criticizing the government, under a law intended to prevent the resurgence of fascism?
Self parody.
The true definition of fascism should be the use of political force to crush dissent. Fasces were rods carried by lictors who attended Roman praetors and consuls. These guards would use the rods to beat the shit out of anyone who offended their boss. Whatever the denials of the mainstream media, that's what's happening in the West. Democracy is a sham if the government can ban dissent.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini
Here we are.
Indeed. And who are today's fascists?
Has the US replicated Corporatism to the extent that we are fascist, and no longer a Capitalist nation?
You can be both. For example, all the major combatants in WWII, except the USSR, were fascist to some extent. You had to fight fascism with fascism.
Big Money rules and abhors a free market.
“who have offended their boss” This is the crux of the matter. Government officials who can’t stand being criticized and so they use the ruse of “hate speech” to punish the criticizer.
You can redefine fascism however you want. It seems that everybody does. But the word I think you are actually seeking is “authoritarianism”.
George Orwell said fascism was "any authoritarian government that the speaker doesn't like." This will not change.
Yet in its time in Germany ( Weimar Republic) the word meant National Socialism, a political party headed by Hitler. It became authoritarianism during his tenure.
The laws are twisted to suit the leadership and to protect the leadership. Almost everywhere in the West now, we are experiencing the effects of a post democracy landscape that is edging ever further towards the kind of blatant corruption we previously saw in the 3rd world and fascist/communist regimes.
First, common sense is eroded. Makes it easier to then just follow orders.
Totalitarian.
Nazis behaving like Nazis towards a non-Nazi who used a Nazi symbol to call out the Nazis.
can't have a free society without free speech .
Therefore. . . .
Your WTF opening is the best first question I've ever seen in an interview and the only appropriate way to begin this chat.
But indeed, writ large, WTF?
It's great in that it's frequently the reader's principal question.
Nazis don’t like being called out, just ask Hitler.
My sympathies and support to C.J. - as the marvelous German EBM-ish group And One noted in their song “Life Isn’t Easy In Germany” the relationship between free expression and democracy has been an uneasy one at best in that country.
That said, can we do a fundraiser? I’d get some stickers, buttons, a bandanna as long as they include this, which sums up so much so well:
“Matt Taibbi: What the fuck?”
Was Victoria Nuland there recently? Sounds like her handywork. Thanks for keeping us up to date on C.J. - he's amazing - as are you.