I continue to disagree with the notion that revoking provisional residence in the United States over professed hatred of the United States should even be compared to arresting people for speaking plain truths that the the Left doesn’t like.
Everyone has free speech, but not everyone has a right to be here.
The more important consideration for me than legal merits (which I am somewhere between your and Matt’s position on) is scale:
We have a few thousand foreign nationals with possible violations of their rights as visa holders at question on this side of the pond.
On the other side of the pond (and almost on ours), we have a vast electronic surveillance and social control apparatus that has served as a bludgeon for an ascendant globalist ideology backed by government bureaucracies, international institutions, and other elites represented in the WEF, Atlantic Council, etc.
How can one even remotely equate the two? It takes adopting a profound slippery slope argument for the first one to think it is like the second.
I watched Freddie and Matt - profoundly weak performance by a guy who demonstrated he's meticulous about his appearance and enunciation - and extremely sloppy and shallow in his grasp of the facts and the issues.
In Freddie world - the "For You" and "Following" X interface is too complicated for X users to grasp. Worse Freddie missed the key point of all free discourse discussions - which is - if you don't like the content, don't watch it, or listen to it.
Matt spent most of his time coddling Freddie. I would have been much blunter and aggressive - Freddie's priors confirmed him an anti-free discourse advocate, a British ken-doll, a coward, and a closet authoritarian.
UPDATE: How to use X (Twitter) via CARAA - https://x.com/CARAA_Center/status/1963993532919579050 - Statue of Taharqa making an offering to the falcon god Hemen. Third Intermediate Period, 25th Dynasty, ca. 690–664 BC. Now in the Louvre Museum.
Matt still likes to flex his liberal do-gooder chops once in awhile by separating himself from his "far right wing" subscribers. He sometimes forgets that since the rise of Donald Trump, we're all in the same boat. If you disagree with even one tenet of the woke left, the propaganda machine will label you "far right" and excommunicate you.
I got the sense that Matt was simply being polite - too polite, for my taste. Nor do I think Matt gives a fuck what anyone thinks at this point. And I mean really doesn't give a fuck, which is a great place for Bard Matt to be. Bard Matt voted for HRC in 2016 and openly declared he couldn't stand Trump at the beginning of Russiagate. I give 2025 Matt all the credit in the world.
Let's be thankful that Matt has remained true to his craft, and has not abandoned his honesty and integrity, like the founder of TFP. I have given a lot of thought to why it is I feel so disappointed, betrayed by Bari Weiss. There are many reasons, but I think the main one is that she combined her business savvy with her journalist's expertise and skill to build a news organization that I felt was honest and fair at a time when there was a total vacuum of honesty and fairness, and courage, in the news media. The stories covered there on subjects such as insanity in gender ideology and in academia were major contributors to her success. Then the election, and Trump immediately takes direct action to correct things that TFP has been justifiably been criticizing for years, and never a word from them to even acknowledge his actions. She simply sold out. I'm a strong believer in capitalism, and she certainly has every right to be as ambitious as she likes and to use her business savvy to leverage herself and her business to increase her wealth, but how it was done seems to be a bit dishonest. I can't see that sort of thing ever happening with Racket News, thank God
Agreed. I let my paid subscription to TFP lapse. It was as if she and her editors had all climbed the hinge of a teeter-totter as if to say, look how balanced we are—we can criticize Trump, too!
They made amends by letting VDH have a time or two at the typewriter, but it got tedious.
Freddie has European culture tied to his world views. We Americans don't understand this because we falsely assume everyone values freedom of speech as we do. They do not. They value obedience more than freedom of expression.
It's culture. The US values freedom of expression more than other countries. As has been mentioned here, it's one of the reasons why Trump won the votes he got.
The Democrats have little respect for freedom of expression, unless it's to affirm what their experts say.... like Claudine Gay and Tony Fauci. They demanded and got obedience from their loyal voters who were told to shut up and do as they were told. Just like the Europeans.
Obedience and deference are also an intrinsic part of the educational system, which is authoritarian in nature; the more time one spends in the educational system, the more one is conditioned to obey and defer to one's superiors. Hence the cult of the expert, and the expectation that people genuflect to them.
come to Canada and see the idiots we are surrounded by that seem to crave government control. i would have never said this 10 years ago, but becoming the 51st state might be our best option.
"How can any sentient adult person, value obedience as a market of adult virtue?"
It's rather alien to me, too. However, obedience to "law", however implemented -- especially in a democracy, however constituted -- means that many benefits of large organization can be realized. Abandoning this "obedience" is often nothing more than societally-destructive selfishness.
💯 As a Canadian( for now!!!) we are traditionally between the US and British sensibility but lean more UK in this area. Its all about being polite ( sorry) and deference- all to hide the aggression underneath( ie we are superior don’t you know) Its tiresome and so Empire
Yes, our obnoxious Canadian superiority complex is on display every day at our national propaganda outlet the CBC. A constant story is the bigoted - look at what the stupid Americans are up to now. Canadians are polite little backstabbers.
Deployed to the far east twice. Once there were Canadians jointly based with our Air Force, and once at a site where a great many British soldiers were passing through. The native guards liked interacting with the Americans and Canadians, but hated the British. We were polite and meshed with local military when possible. The British were generally rude and officious with the locals. I had multiple, volunteer, gate duty with local military guards who were berated constantly by British. They all spoke perfect English, but when the first word out of a British officer was to yell an obscenity, the gate guards suddenly didn't speak English.
"They value obedience more than freedom of expression."
This value is what differentiates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from its much stronger and less-authority-trusting American Bill of Rights. No accident that our current PM leans toward Europe at this critical moment for freedom of expression.
Let's not lose sight of what the elites mean when they say they want to stop the spread of disinformation. Anytime we see it proposed we must understand it for what it really is - preventing any information from reaching the general public that does not conform with the controlling elites agenda. Discussion of disinformation should not ever exclude the history of the proven disinformation that was spread by the controlling elites over the last several years. The very people who claim that they desire to control disinformation are the same people who are most guilty of creating and spreading it. And... exactly who gets to choose what disinformation is? That's the larger question, to which we all know the answer, it's them, the arrogant educated ruling elites that get to choose. Their arrogance being so strong that it prevents them from seeing how wrong this attitude is.
Agree here Matt. Freedom of speech is held in America as a human right under God. In other nations the government is God. Why some countries in Europe are so intent on supporting Zelenski’s totalitarian rule when the first thing he did was outlaw the news reporters and sources that didn’t fall in line, is beyond my American mind! JD Vance was brave to call this to the front even though the Brits bend more socialistic, as does Canada. To try to control other country voices on the internet is a absurd. I’m glad Biden and the Cisa/Aspen group failed. After all much of the mis, mal, dis stuff was theirs after the real truth came out. Boomerangs. And of course i have a problem with the Assange and Snowden voices of truth still being retaliated against, even when we are now sure their voices warned of evil villains and systems lurking. Hopefully justice will come to some still needing to be yanked out of the darkness and into court (maybe jail)? Let freedom of speech ring loud, if even only in America 🇺🇸!!!!
I tried to listen to Freddie in the past but was repulsed by him. I think he is a little bitch. I am glad Matt found his way to being cancelled as he was probably a lot like Freddie before he was caught out by his peers for seeing the truth Inshallah. I love Matt, and happily subscribe but i often see on ATW or read in these Stacks things that make me think we would be on very different sides if he hadn’t fallen into the fuckery. Freddie is a total snarky bell end that would be on Pod Save America if he lived here. Britain is properly getting fucked and he is worried about us. Piss off mate.
It matters if the string-pullers for both are primarily based in the US. Be clear - these folks regard Trump as temporary.
If the GOP lose the House, all progress slows. Trump may well prepare the ground well for Vance, or the next GOP president. But the forces that want Trump, RFK, and Tulsi to fail are aligned and fully committed to ending all dissent - across the board.
Betting that GOP pols won't sell out the American public is a really, really bad plan.
I agree that Germany's free speech oversteps are scary and that other countries' are too. But the current cases in UK are being misread.
Matt said on Notes that the law affecting Graham Linehan was for "causing harassment, alarm, or distress". Not according to the Met Police who explicitly cited "inciting violence".
GL's tweet is of the format "if you see A, then B is true and that's bad, so do C, D, or punch them in the balls."
The last part may be a joke but if so it's almost fully undermined by A B C and D being completely serious.
In some speech law like defamation there is a concept that you cant be held liable for something that is obviously over the top like saying "Forget what Taibbi says, he rapes aliens from Mars all the time". But that level of clear absurdity if FAR from met by this "joke".
Therefore this is arguably not even protected speech in the USA. It arguably fails the Brandenburg test for portetially inciting violence from one who is in situation A and punches some balls. Such a person could not be called unreasonable for taking the post seriously.
No incitement of lawbreaking is protected speech in the USA. Not Khalil M. telling people to come to Columbia and trespass, not anybody posting on X for migrants to enter the US illegally. The Supreme Court already fully validated that a law banning the latter is constitutional, when it was challenged in USa v Hansen. No one, citizen nor foreign national resident, enjoys the freedom of speech to go on X and post "Hey you migrants in N. Mexico, just surge across en masse!"
I would argue that Lucy Connolly's case, also cited recently by Matt and others, is far over any line and would not be protected speech in the US by any measure. Overall these are terrible examples to make the case that free speech isnt hitting the right balance overseas. Not being able to say a German politician is a prick - that's some real shit there. Not being able to call for vigilantism or directly incite an violent strike against a group or person you dont like is already stuff that fails the Brandenburg test in the USA.
Linehan was arrested under the 1986 Public Order Act. The Met told us this. That’s the act I quoted.
Second, Linehan’s speech most certainly would not be incitement in America. Incitement requires urging a specific person , imminently, to a specific lawless act. The “punch in the balls” statement fails all three tests, and that’s before we get to the part of it being a joke.
I agree Matt. Kelly Green's incitement argument is weak. If I tell someone, "go fuck yourself" am I really "inciting" them to perform such an act on their own person? Well, in the example of urging someone to self fornicate it actually does meet the first two conditions of US legal criteria and possibly the third. But who would look at it as a matter of concern? Please, the Met needs to deal with serious crime and stop being speech bullies.
I like how you started doubtful and then decided it did meet the elements, but it's dumb to charge it. I agree fully, definitely not saying any of this should be charged or should even be the law. Just analyzing the laws we have.
Also you have been off a few times on First Amendment stuff. You never engaged these points but on Khalil M a while back you cited the Bridges case and left the impression with the phrase "a closely analogous 1945 case about an Australian labor organizer accused of communist affiliation. Not unlike someone like Mahmoud Khalil, Harry Bridges was a foreigner thought to be here on a specious premise, advancing unpopular beliefs and causing trouble." that Bridges was deported for being a communist but that was disallowed. That is a highly misleading picture.
What was wrong in Bridges is that the government had no proof that Bridges was a Communist and relied on hearsay, not that one couldn't deport.
You failed to cite Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, a case later than Bridges where Communists were deported for being Communists and the court found that fully constitutional.
“ Harisiades v. Shaughnessy” was an immigration case and the free speech arguments did not apply. It is off point. The critical issue was executive authority to deport not free speech.
“What was wrong in Bridges is that the government had no proof that Bridges was a Communist and relied on hearsay, not that one couldn't deport.”
You seem to be misusing hearsay.
Hearsay:
1) An out of court statement
2) offered in court
3) by one other that the declarant (original speaker)
4) for the truth of the matter asserted.
Most Anglo/American criminal procedure rules have exceptions to hearsay. Statements against interest are generally amongst those exceptions.
It is not at all surprising. Look around the posts here and see the ones where I lay out my argument better but if the US is a 90 out of 100 on Free Speech, the UK is an 80. This case Falls somewhere in the 88 to 92 Range and we're arguing about which exact number it is, when the UK does plenty of things down around 81 that we're not bitching about right now and really that's where the rubber meets the road. Put slightly less abstractly, hate speech is already illegal there and they can prosecute people for that.
That sucks and I hate it, but this case isn't just going after him for hate speech it's something that, no matter how slightly, it's harder to defend on a free speech basis.
If you think that after the Hansen case upholding the law that the US would not possibly prosecute someone with a decent following saying on X "if you find yourself in Northern Mexico but are not a US citizen, just come on across the border where the wall isn't finished" under S 1324 (a)(1)(A)(iv) because there is no specific person involved or they are kind of kidding, you are high.
No need to accuse dissenters of being high. Especially considering how far out of mainstream thinking your expressed opinions are.
You do not understand how far our 1st amendment goes.
Political speech, including satire, is the highest form of protected speech.
Matt’s explanation of the elements of incitement is slightly in error. The speech need not be directed at a specific single listener. Usually, but not necessarily, incitement is directed at a crowd.
So, your analysis is wrong. Further, it lacks all the other elements of incitement as well.
The person who is going to protect others’ speech as satire or detect what is a joke and what is not is the one who's admonishing me about using the syntax “if you think this you’re high” as if I seriously accused Matt Taibbi of being high?
Over the top is a safe harbor defense. It doesnt meet that. It says "when you are standing in front of the person" so it's not general
Regardless, once we're debating Brandenburg, the speech is in play and has little to do with over the line abuse of free speech by the government. If they were going after him solely for trans hate speech, yes, that's protected fully in the US and it would be much worse. They are citing "inciting violence" though, not "harassment", "bullying", "hate speech" or anything else, and GL admits it's this tweet that's in play. so it's about whether or not he incited violence no matter what. That's a very different free speech picture than criminalizing hate speech is, which the UK *also does* since they don't have protections for hate speech like the US does.
So what the Taibbiverse is doing right now is saying "it's getting so bad over there" citing this incident, when the UK has banned hate speech forever because their free speech laws are significantly to the right of the US's. So on a 1 to 100 scale if the US is a 90 on freedom of speech and the UK is an 80, the claim is "this is so bad, they're acting on a case in the 88-92 range" [and we're all sitting here arguing if it's an 88 or a 92] when they regularly do worse things all the time, in the low 80s. This is not new.
What is new is the shit that Germany does in the 60-70 range and the UK does in the 70-80 range. Much worse stuff than these two cases.
I respectfully disagree. A, B, C, and D can be entirely serious, but I find D to be not an incitement of violence, but encouragement of self-defense, which is an inalienable right of every individual, and completely separate from incitement to violence. The violence in Graham Linehan's example is initiated by a biological male entering a women's bathroom. Her reaction to it is justifiable self-defense.
It's close but not the same. Nobody debates that the Menendez brothers suffered violence and abuse. The debate is whether they had an imminent fear of something when they killed their parents, making it self defense.
Women, smaller, less muscular and less fast than Men, have been given this advice for all time, whenever they must face a would be male predator, in a confined space, shout, make a scene- if all else fails kick them in the balls- it is quite literally our last defense.
Why should women allow men to do whatever they want to us with no recourse whatsoever?
What of our dignity, our privacy, our sense of safety?
And if a man who thinks he is a lady wants to dress up in lady clothes, let him use the male facilities or do it at home- it is aggressive and scary to real women, for big hairy men, to traipse around like Buffalo Bill in the ladies room and taunt us that they will not leave- no matter if they scare or offend us-they also like to threaten us with rape and death if we object, so, this is no ‘phobia’, no irrational fear, but a well-grounded in human biology, across all history and time, justified fear.
There’s zero argument that this is defamatory in the US. Who, specifically, was defamed?
There’s also zero argument that Linehan’s tweets meet the US equivalent any criminal act.
“…the Met Police who explicitly cited "inciting violence".
The US equivalent is incitement to eminent lawless action. Despite what the left desperately wants to believe, Trump’s J6 speech falls plenty short of the elements of the crime.
We require both specific intent and realistic expectation that the audience is about to actually do the acts demanded by the speaker and then does them.
The UK apparently doesn’t bother with either of those important elements.
There are two fundamental elements to every crime. Mens rea (criminal intent) and actus reus (criminal act). The UK has apparently done away with the two most fundamental pillars of criminal law.
Without these requirements the criminal law becomes lawless and corrupt.
To add insult to injury, it appears that such speech crimes are selectively applied to those who prefer truth to accepting woke groupthink.
Will Linehan have an opportunity to learn who the actual complainant is? Confront his accusers? Or is this now The State v Linehan? How does it work in the UK? Are any of the complainants obligated to show any real harm, or do hurt feeling, alleged denial of someone's perceived truth, or some wild pronouncement meant as humor qualify? It seems to me there is a lot of room for abuse here, and Linehan will be the victim no matter what. Even found not guilty and dismissed he's had to hire counsel, been detained and all of the other costs that go into making sure the process is the punishment. If complaints filed anonymously will be investigated I have a list of Muslim clerics in Manchester . . . but I will wager the law does not go that far.
If you read Linehan's own substack this week, you'd see he has a very good idea who the complainant was - "I bet I know who made this complaint. Lindsay Watson (demented ex-copper troon who was fired for his online conduct). " This was confirmed by his lawyer. It seems this individual has an obsession with pursuing individuals voicing anti-trans comments.
You are misstating what is necessary for 'incitement' to bypass the First Amendment. It is not simply advocating lawbreaking. It is advocating lawbreaking in a manner and at a time and a place where the lawbreaking will occur *imminently*, not at some unspecified future time and place were a tranny is waving his wang in front of a teenage girl.
Seriously. Are we really arguing that someone here on a student visa should have the right to scream "Death to America" in the face of Americans on their way to class and not have their visa revoked? F that and F them.
Free speech for American citizens. Everyone else should behave like a guest and expect the bum's rush if they don't.
Immigration law here is used to conflate the issue. As Americans cannot be arrested for hatred of the United States, the relevant point -- the actual reason these visa holders are being arrested -- is for speaking their own "plain truths" that the administration and its supporters don’t like. It's pretty damn simple and naked.
Rubio knows better certainly. The Turkish student's case was meat to xenophobes and delegitimized tthe right's claim to be free speech advocates . As always, it's when you defend the rights of those with whom you disagree that your true colors show. Khalil's case is simply not the same situation. He clearly imcited Columbia students through recorded word and deed. International students reside here at the pleasure of the State Department and broader federal government. It's abhorrent that they not be able to speak out on political issues while here. By the same token, pretending that they aren't guests of America and as such shouldn't experience repercussions including deportation if they incite chaos and violence should be obvious.
I agree with Rubio. There was already an organized and violent anti-Israel movement on campuses. Organized and funded by people and NGOs which are not so much supporting the Palestinian cause (they neither understand nor care about it) as they are using it to justify intentionally spreading chaos in order to undermine the US and its institutions. Their real goal is a Marxist dictatorship. Khalil's open and vocal support for the movement alone can and should be sufficient reason for excluding him from the United States.
It was very strange how all the tents were alike across the US. Even the provided meals looked ordered from the same suppliers, from Columbia to UCLA. And the people I saw (at NYU) for the great majority looked like the usual Antifa/ Occupy types that showed up in the past. The students who were relatively a small number mostly were not the radical types but ME students sympathetic to the plight of Palestinian civilians.
Considering the pro-Hamas pro-Muslim Brotherhood exceptionally authoritarian present govt in Turkey it really wouldn't surprise me if the Turkish student affair wasn't more complex than we are allowed to know. There is no doubt about Erdogan's reach here
"He clearly incited Columbia students through recorded word and deed"
Which was what, exactly? Let's get specific, as I observe the conflation flying around on this case and other non-citizen examples is pretty thick. For example, people claiming to be afraid because of hurtful words hurled in confined-space/march protests is pretty weak case of assault. That's the kind of thing the woke have been doing, after all.
Khalil is a foreign national who was the spokesperson for CUAD, which on the Columbia University campus celebrated the slaughter of Jews in October 2023 and again in the anniversary in October 2024, and he was the leader of the takeover of tbe library at Barnard College in March 2025, where pamphlets celebrating Yayah Sunwar and the October slaughter of Jews were distributed. It was two days after this action thst he was arrested for deportation. Get the picture?
Per legalclarity.org: "[I]ncitement is urging another to engage in illegal conduct. ... In the United States, the landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) case established that speech must be directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action, setting a high bar for what qualifies as incitement."
I see the descriptions of hate (still not quoted, just labeled), but still no example of incitement. Did, say, Khalil point to a Jewish student nearby and say "Go get him!"? Did Khalil say "Tomorrow we're meeting to plan the synagogue bombing, come join us"?
Takeover of the library is illegal. He should risk punishment for this. What is the normal punishment? How can he be punished while not suppressing his points of view?
It is also entirely legal in the US, and from my observations is commonly done, to hate and celebrate the slaughter of Gazans, and of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Again, I see no incitement, per the law. Nor do I see any visa holders getting deported for it.
You're citing no incitement of violence but inciting any lawbreaking is sufficient.
The takeover of the library, if he suggested to any to do that, would be an example.
He definitely invited outside protestors to come trespass on Columbia property after the first encampment was ruled clearly illegal. He knew such action was illegal because he took pains to point out that he himself wasnt staying overnight so as not to break the law.
"Immigration law here is used to conflate the issue"; "as I observe the conflation flying around on this case"
The conflation I see here, the "fusing of ideas", is (a) derivative de facto speech control (arrest and deportation) as somehow being a kind of (b) de jure speech control (e.g., by some well-understood legal limitation, such as incitement).
As I understand the law, the administration's ability to deport on whim is not, or does not contain, a legal ability to limit speech (as would be the case, e.g., pursuant to incitement), simply because it can *effectively* accomplish that. Many people seem to interpret that it is perfectly normal to "shut up" a visa holder by intent, that it's done routinely for this very reason, and I haven't seen how that's the case.
One thing to keep in mind is that a system where the US cant deport anyone here on a student visa who starts publicly agitating against the US - and is fully protected by courts and held to have all right to stay one it becomes about their free speech, quickly get probelematic.
Shortly after that scenario gets to be the reality China and Russia can plant students here on visas and use them as tools against us, with our courts saying they have to stay because we cant stop them as it's now about free speech.
Moreover, I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of those students come from countries where they'd be jailed for uttering far less in the way of dissidence.
Free speech is difficult. So is democracy. So is policing. We should be providing adequate the resources to monitor suspicions of illegal activity, but should understand and enforce an absolute hard boundary between speech and action, between surveillance and probable cause, etc., and make these things well-understood again by the public.
We've lost a lot of clarity about it since the 1970s, when we -- officially -- unearthed the abuses of the FBI and CIA. We need a renewed effort in education to understand once again how government *should* work, and loudly scream "NO!" when they fail instead of tolerating the corruption normalization that's taken place. Trump's going at a lot of this now, once again, but his considerable character defects and intelligence blinders constantly get in the way.
I think we generally agree. I think we have generally agreed in the past. You're in the center of the Taibbiverse on this stuff and you're balanced and thoughtful. I try to be too.
this is the key. people also have a right to self governance and that includes not allowing foriegners to invade and effect their political process in any way. they can be removed for any reason, whatever. a foreigner in the country is here by revocable privelege.
The "..I felt threatened--was uncomfortable.." grift is in fact an encouragement to snitch out anyone not on board with the WEF/CCP/EU Brussels Davos crowd. (Canadian Bill-C63 wants to make snitching and industry.) Those who care to remember will recall that "emotional discomfort" as a means of destroying lives, careers and political enemies was introduced into the world psyche by our lesbian feminist Marxist friends (now the DEI) and their "..why can't we just kill men.." friends in the MSM who, even after their victim was proven innocent, demanded execution. Likewise understanding that the perps were joined at the hip with, and got rich on American tax treasure, serving avaricious capital and the so called "deep state" will help heal one small fracture in our Republic's reality. The public war on free speech and expression began there. Now 30 citizens a day in Starmer's England?
We the People may be breathing a little easier after the Harris defeat but the perps are still swinging hard. Those boys and girls don't quit: Tax treasure is just so tasty. Those interested might spend a moment with Mike Benz and his explanation of the USAID/State Dept./CIA connection to the "rent-a-riot"/MSM psyop and how Davos billionaires use American tax treasure to cut our Republic's throat while lining their pockets. (Maybe We the People need an NGO od our very own.) Meanwhile free citizens have to request an armed guard to unlock the toothpaste. It's a fk'n psyop.
Truth is light. Demand, support and participate in the solutions oriented truth/fact based national conversation that will create the truth/fact based reality our Republic deserves.
With you on that. But when thinking and speaking crosses over into behavior a line is crossed. Rubio got a bit over his skiis on revoking student visas based solely on words.
No i don’t think Rubio did. This guy was a foreigner masquerading as a student, pushing an riot agenda. He was not an American citizen. That’s a big difference. Kinda like Nuland and her group going to Ukraine to push n agenda to overthrow a duly elected president. Both agendas are wrong. We as foreigners have no business doing this.
The “elites” and would-be censors still don’t understand that many people are so revolted by their behavior that they consider Donald Trump a far better option. This seems to break their brains.
What is the purpose of a Visa? Why do we even ask a foreign citizen to have one? Here's one answer:
A visa is an official document or endorsement issued by a country's government that allows a foreign national to enter, stay, or work in that country for a specific purpose and duration. Its primary purposes are:
1. Regulate Entry: To control and monitor who enters the country, ensuring compliance with immigration laws.
2. Define Purpose: To specify the reason for the visit, such as tourism, work, study, or family reunification.
3. Ensure Security: To screen applicants for security risks, criminal history, or other concerns before granting entry.
4. Manage Stay: To set conditions, like duration of stay or restrictions on activities (e.g., prohibiting work on a tourist visa).
5. Support International Agreements: To facilitate travel and cooperation between countries based on bilateral or multilateral agreements.
Visas help governments balance national security, economic interests, and international relations while allowing lawful travel and migration.
If non-citizens come to this country to exacerbate strife, it is in the interest of the country's people to refuse a visa to a foreigner or to revoke an existing visa. I suggest that we have enough citizens willing to protest, riot, or intimidate their fellow citizens that we don't have to import them from other countries.
correct they have no right to be here. they are here by extended and revocable privelege, which is as it ought to be. they are not losing a right, they are abusing a right and then losing a granted privelege.
Well then, imagine a future AOC administration where according that administration, "exacerbating strife" includes advocating against men posing as women competing in women's sports or showing up in women's locker rooms. It would then be in the interest of the American people to revoke Graham Linehan's (who is living in Arizona on a visa) visa.
Of course, an AOC administration can move to revoke the visas of people it doesn't like. In fact, it is practically guaranteed to do that. To suppose that an AOC administration would not do that if the current administration doesn't do it is naive. Democrats tried to bankrupt Trump, jail Trump, raid Trump's home, and encourage assassins to shoot him. Trump did none of these things to his opponents.
AOC would remove non-tippers, wrong thinkers, shit posters and anyone making fun of her friends - the brother humper, baldy, fire alarm puller and table cloth wearer.
the dems are like the europians, they dont acknowlege or respect anyones natural rights, since they believe rights are only granted by govt. i.e. might makes right
One persons "exacerbate strife" is another person's cry for justice. To obtain justice in reaction to injustices, it is quite commonly needed to stir up peoples' emotions. Look no further than the abolition and US Civil Rights movements, and protests against various wars this country's entire history.
You're missing the point of free speech, by relying for the technicality that since we (the administration and its supporters) *can* legally suppress non-citizens' speech on US soil by arresting/deporting them, that we *should* do it.
Let me repeat, we're a country with over 300 million citizens. We all have free speech rights. People with Visas are guests. We have more than enough homegrown protesters. The purpose of vetting visitors is to prevent people who will exacerbate the strife in our country from entering, and if they create strife while here, to ask them to leave. I realize that this requires an adult attitude, like a Dad telling a child "no." However, we finally have an administration that is able and willing to do that. An administration, incidentally, that just demonstrated the ability and the willingness to do something rather than whine about the global drug trade.
So right. As we argue or debate all these semantics the Muslim brotherhood organizations and their followers further create chaos in the streets, in courts, and influence on the colleges. If you watch the speeches at their meetings, they make crystal clear their goal to be the destruction and takeover of our republic. As we like fools delay actions wondering if we hurt their feelings or if they should have the rights to stay in our home as they plot to burn it down. This is not a drill. It is happening.
"We all have free speech rights. People with Visas are guests. ... this requires an adult attitude, like a Dad telling a child 'no.' "
Guests are not, thereby, inferior humans held on leashes. Either we treat their participation in society as we treat ourselves or we are hypocrites. That means they should be punished for lawbreaking, while at the same time they should be able to speak their minds. No daddy is needed to "mind" them. That also goes for tests of citizenship on the basis of beliefs.
I am much more concerned about provocative statements about flag burning and kicking out naturalized citizens who foment violence than deporting foreign students. Whether you like it or not there is a different standard for that than for citizens. And the EU is not even in the same hemisphere in terms of speech coercion as Trump's actual actions.
Free speech has been dying a slow dead since the creation of “hate” speech, which suggests that everyone should be protected from offenses, especially those in leadership.
Yes, and in the US, the government needs to stay in its lane.... All of these idiot "leaders" talking about the 1A being an obstacle..... Gone too far, for too long.
Except for women. Not protected by hate speech or the elderly not protected by hate speech or the infirm or children all of the truly vulnerable groups are mot protected by hate speech laws therefore these laws are designed and implemented to protect other groups to whom there is some objection and that is the only thing making them ‘vulnerable’.
Matt, you get a little wishy washy sometimes when you try not to piss off one side or the other. We have the first amendment. Period. You can say what you want when you want without fear of persecution. England is finished. They have 2 recognized judicial systems including Sharia law. People here on green cards who want to shit on America shouldn’t be here. It’s a privilege we allow and can and should revoke if you create unrest and don’t act like you’re a guest here. A green card isn’t the same as being a citizen. I’m sorry but it’s not. This country needs to somehow become a country and if that can’t happen the greatest experiment on earth shall cease to exist and I shudder at what that looks like.
That is fine as long as your side is in charge. I urge you to use your imagination and think of a day when we have a progressive leftist administration. (Just use your imagination on this one.)
We don't need to look to the other for bad decisions, everyone makes them.
Our lack of (anything close to) perfection in discernment and judgment doesn't mean as punishment we should just randomly pick babysitters, or citizens.
That evil exists is not an excuse to destroy morality itself--that sounds like something the bad guy says.
I took that same perspective - backlash (against many, many things) helped re-elect Trump. As an aside, I wouldn't vote for another Democrat if threatened at gunpoint.
Voted Democratic Party since 1988 my first vote and my whole life through- until 2024.
I voted for Trump.
And I remain glad that I did and delighted with the results: Men are not Women, Children must not be mutilated and given cross sex hormones, Men out of Women’s sports, border sealed and deportations underway, Love of Country an important truth imbedded in military and education.
I'm an expat living in Germany. My father, an archaeologist, was imprisoned and tortured in Nazi Germany for denouncing the Hitler Youth movement. Were he still alive, he would be horrified. So glad he does not have to witness this dystopian insanity.
Just to make sure of the reasoning here: The Yookay has a problem with arresting working people by the tens of thousands annually for saying people with testicles are men but Elon Musk makes fun of them for that idiocy, therefore the problem is Elon? Also, how are things going with the decades of mass rapes of British children Freddie? Got any cops to spare for that little matter?
That sums it up. But the UK has an enormous inferiority complex, especially with regard to the United States. They have a lot of national pride, and artful commentary that takes this fact into account could be much better received.
"but also clear bad signs (Marco Rubio using AI to scan social media of legal visitors, having the head of X in a high quasi-state position, etc). "
How is this fundamentally different from having consular officers manually reviewing articles in local newspapers, in foreign countries, written by visa applicants? And then denying them visas based on anti-American content of those articles? Nobody can seriously argue that some guy in Yemen who publicly professes hatred for the United States should be given a visa. So why is using AI to scan social media any different? AI is just a tool - the relevant point is that people who profess hatred for this country should not be allowed in.
not to pick nits, but as an example if someone lies on the visa application (association with certain groups, etc), but now the gubmint uses AI to find their lies it makes the previous lying ok?
Matt, I read everything you write (and even pay to subscribe, believe it or not), and generally agree with you on most things (even though I suspect my politics are considerably to the right of yours - for example, I have generally come around to your views on Ukraine, even though initially I though Biden's policies were a very poor approximation of what "the correct policy" might be).
But this is one of two or three issues where you seem to be blinded by your biases - with all due respect. Your feelings on this issue seem to be based on the simple fact that many of the current so-called "victims" of this State Department practice are anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, and your own views are also quite visibly and very openly anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian.
But setting that aside, consider the logic of it.
What difference does it make if a foreign national is here, or not here, for purposes of him maintaining a visa, or getting a visa? He has no *right* to be here. His presence here is entirely a privilege, that can be withdrawn at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. Just as a guest whom you allow to enter your house - you can tell them to get the hell out of your house because you don't like their stated or suspected intentions, or because you don't like their table manners, or because you don't like their views on Saudi and Mauritanian slave markets currently operating there, or because you don't like their lisp, or because their body odor reminds you of a Hamas terrorist. You don't need to justify yourself to anybody - it's YOUR house, and if YOU feel that someone's body odor is that of a Hamas terrorist, then it's YOUR absolute right to tell them to leave - now, right this second.
The U.S. State Department, as our representative, has an absolute right to deny visas, and yank visas, from those whose presence it deems undesirable - for any reason, or for no reason at all. This is not a First Amendment issue in any way, shape or form. Every one of these people can say whatever they want, in any form they want, to whoever they want - once they return to their own countries. It really is that simple.
None of this is to minimize Europe's unfortunate descent into censorship hell - but we cannot seriously argue that we are on the same road to hell because we want to eject pro-Hamas spokespeople who are foreign nationals from our country.
The problem with pieces like this is: in an effort to not alienate Taibbi's former liberal base, he treats bad ideas as if they are serious ideas. Europe is lost. Trump's enthusiasm to restore order does not compare. Flag burning law is not arresting dissenters of public policy. They will never equate. Weakness of personality driven media is fear of offense, greed of getting liberal audience = weak takes, like suggesting the current administration bears a hint of the false rhetoric used by the Left.
Restoring order cannot be used as an excuse to suppress speech. Period. Unless clear and strenuous accommodation is made to allow the speech while suppressing actual disorder, the con is clear.
So let riots run roughshod over our cities in the name of free speech? So long as they’re chanting “death to America,” they’re allowed to destroy everything in their path?
There's no contradiction. The first sentence, in fact, protests the conflation of the two concepts. "Restoring order" is not the same thing as "suppressing speech", and the two things should be identified and dealt with separately. One can restore order while guaranteeing a peaceful platform to express the speech.
Getting into the weeds here, but 'restoring order' is subject to interpretation by whoever is is doing the 'restoring'. We talk of a slippery slope? This is indeed a very slippery one. I think a definition of what that slope entails in warranted.
First, you can't have freedom of speech in the first place unless public order is maintained. So the latter has to be prioritized in cases where the principles are in tension, in the world of "is" rather than the world of "ought"
Second, in the case of public "protests", we have a long-proven method for managing things like this. The authorities keep an eye on the proceedings, and when things get out of hand, they read the riot act, after which everyone who is out there indulging in their freedom of speech is in the middle of an illegal assembly and is subject to arrest and prosecution for that. You don't get to say "but, *my* freedom of speech is very, very important and I'm not throwing burning gasoline at the cops, so nobody can be tear-gassed while I'm speaking." Speech is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Your speech is not being suppressed. You won't be punished for saying "off the pigs" two minutes ago. You're being arrested for being in an illegal assembly. It's that simple.
During the George Floyd riots, the police did this with great restraint and professionalism. It's not the protesters' fault that the bad actors started a riot, but it is also not the cops' fault that there was a riot at that place. It was their job to do something about that and they did. Meantime, tens of thousands of people had their perfectly legal and unmolested public say on the matter, in places that were not inside of illegal assemblies. Their views were thoroughly aired and discussed in the public discourse. These views were unpopular to many, but none of those protestors were harmed.
Complaining of "corruption" because the cops didn't consult you on how they could do the best possible job of facilitating your freedom of speech rights when they were hard at work suppressing riots, speaks to me of a basic lack of civic understanding. Rights and responsibilities go together. You have a right to free speech, but you have a responsibility to support public order so that everyone can have their free speech. I don't understand why this is so difficult.
Ours is to decide, on balance, whether we want the majority of the policies by a given administration. The courts will obviously protect flag burners (it's been decided). The courts are NOT protecting UK dissenters, and the tyrannical rule of the Labour party. They will be ejected soon, and replaced with one with looks a lot more like Trump 2.0, and Brittish citizens will rejoice.
This was my way of saying I’m concerned about Trumpian abuses but I don’t worry too much yet, because I seem them as relatively minor compared with the other template in Europe.
Anyone traveling to the US to attend one of these sort of conferences and advocate for those measures should not be given entry. Far more damaging than a student advocating for Palestine.
The elites have lost control of the narratives and they know it. Here in the USA the narrative was shaped by the big three TV networks the NYT and WaPo. The internet spawned Twitter and they thought they had control of Twitter until Musk bought it and exposed the rot via Matt Tabbi Et. Al. So while we have our 1St Amendment rights to protect us the folks in Europe do not and in fact view the concept as foreign. So the Elites in Europe are going to use the power of the state to squash any and all dissent. All leftist politicians will crush any dissent because their worldview is built upon nothing but platitudes and lies. Reality will always destroy them.
In time the Muslims will come to power in these formally liberal intellectual societies. They will adopt Shiria law and outlaw hundreds of years of English common law traditions. The fools in charge now will be the first ones that will be wiped out because they are so weak thankfully I will not live too see it happen but it will happen unless there is a violent uprising from the actual true natives of Europe But in reality the people that would have done that are here in the United States or at least their off spring are.
My Ancestors came over before the Revolution and a son of the original man fought in the Revolution. Just think of how it was back then to leave and never to see anyone you ever knew again to journey over the Atlantic Ocean in those tiny sailing vessels to go to a world you knew nothing about and could die a horrible death. just so you could live as a free man vs a vassel to some ruling elite thugs who could kill you tomorrow or take away anything you had accomplished. Those independent minded folks are all here or at least their ancestors are. The weak sheep stayed in Europe
Reality Speaks - I couldn’t agree more! As much as I like them, our several sets of European friends have a different mindset than most of us do - about all sorts of things. And we formed our Constitution to reflect that, thank goodness!
I only found out about ten years ago when we lived in New England that one of my direct ancestors sailed in 1629 on the ship Abigail with his two brothers and that they were some of the original settlers of Charlestown, MA. I have thought so much since then about that journey and about their lives during that time period. We truly do have much to be thankful for that they had such pioneer spirit and fortitude. We’re all blessed to have them as ancestors!
I agree to a point as I also am descended from many who came to the New World to express their religion freely, most of them Quakers. That said, by your argument, all people in Australia whose ancestors were criminals brought over in ships from the UK are currently criminals. 😉
"Free speech" in America has been students inciting violence against Jews and holding up campuses. I also am not sure any country in the world allows you to come in and on a student visa advocate for a group like Hamas that has been declared a terrorist group (who threatens the US as well as Israel). These anti-Jewish narratives are getting Jewish people killed like that couple and others. And while we might put up with that from citizens, we do not have to from visa visitors. That is not the same as just "speech." Not believing men are women is hardly the same. I know from personal experience that trans people are mentally ill and there's much more to the illness than thinking you are in the wrong body. Adults have a right to live and dress however they want; they do not have a right to normalize it and abuse our children, make us all say it's normal or they are going to shoot up schools and more. Hamas is not the same as all Muslims.
I think it's a mistake to draw a line between the incumbent elites of Europe and the United States on this issue. They share the same goal, which is silencing all speech that contradicts the Narrative, and they're all talking to each other at their little discussion fora in Davos or wherever about how they can collaborate to work around each others' laws to get what they want. What's happening in Europe is what the entire Democratic party and most of the Republicans want, but don't think they can get away with (yet).
I continue to disagree with the notion that revoking provisional residence in the United States over professed hatred of the United States should even be compared to arresting people for speaking plain truths that the the Left doesn’t like.
Everyone has free speech, but not everyone has a right to be here.
The more important consideration for me than legal merits (which I am somewhere between your and Matt’s position on) is scale:
We have a few thousand foreign nationals with possible violations of their rights as visa holders at question on this side of the pond.
On the other side of the pond (and almost on ours), we have a vast electronic surveillance and social control apparatus that has served as a bludgeon for an ascendant globalist ideology backed by government bureaucracies, international institutions, and other elites represented in the WEF, Atlantic Council, etc.
How can one even remotely equate the two? It takes adopting a profound slippery slope argument for the first one to think it is like the second.
I watched Freddie and Matt - profoundly weak performance by a guy who demonstrated he's meticulous about his appearance and enunciation - and extremely sloppy and shallow in his grasp of the facts and the issues.
In Freddie world - the "For You" and "Following" X interface is too complicated for X users to grasp. Worse Freddie missed the key point of all free discourse discussions - which is - if you don't like the content, don't watch it, or listen to it.
Matt spent most of his time coddling Freddie. I would have been much blunter and aggressive - Freddie's priors confirmed him an anti-free discourse advocate, a British ken-doll, a coward, and a closet authoritarian.
UPDATE: How to use X (Twitter) via CARAA - https://x.com/CARAA_Center/status/1963993532919579050 - Statue of Taharqa making an offering to the falcon god Hemen. Third Intermediate Period, 25th Dynasty, ca. 690–664 BC. Now in the Louvre Museum.
Worth a click - for real! Ain't life grand!
Matt still likes to flex his liberal do-gooder chops once in awhile by separating himself from his "far right wing" subscribers. He sometimes forgets that since the rise of Donald Trump, we're all in the same boat. If you disagree with even one tenet of the woke left, the propaganda machine will label you "far right" and excommunicate you.
Sharp analysis, but wrong, imho,
I got the sense that Matt was simply being polite - too polite, for my taste. Nor do I think Matt gives a fuck what anyone thinks at this point. And I mean really doesn't give a fuck, which is a great place for Bard Matt to be. Bard Matt voted for HRC in 2016 and openly declared he couldn't stand Trump at the beginning of Russiagate. I give 2025 Matt all the credit in the world.
Update: Michael Shellenberg's PUBLIC has just been banned in the EU. I rarely post on modern politics at my own Substack - but this is one of those times: https://gericault.substack.com/p/public-banned-in-eu
Michael does more in week to protect free speech than than Bari at FP has done in her entire career.
Let's be thankful that Matt has remained true to his craft, and has not abandoned his honesty and integrity, like the founder of TFP. I have given a lot of thought to why it is I feel so disappointed, betrayed by Bari Weiss. There are many reasons, but I think the main one is that she combined her business savvy with her journalist's expertise and skill to build a news organization that I felt was honest and fair at a time when there was a total vacuum of honesty and fairness, and courage, in the news media. The stories covered there on subjects such as insanity in gender ideology and in academia were major contributors to her success. Then the election, and Trump immediately takes direct action to correct things that TFP has been justifiably been criticizing for years, and never a word from them to even acknowledge his actions. She simply sold out. I'm a strong believer in capitalism, and she certainly has every right to be as ambitious as she likes and to use her business savvy to leverage herself and her business to increase her wealth, but how it was done seems to be a bit dishonest. I can't see that sort of thing ever happening with Racket News, thank God
Agree completely re: Matt, not so sure about Bari - who's much closer to Gladwell imho - well-rewarded for spinning for elites and unmoved by facts.
Agreed. I let my paid subscription to TFP lapse. It was as if she and her editors had all climbed the hinge of a teeter-totter as if to say, look how balanced we are—we can criticize Trump, too!
They made amends by letting VDH have a time or two at the typewriter, but it got tedious.
Well, in principle I want a good news organization to be a constant thorn in the side of the government no matter which party is in power.
to those wokesters I am free to heartily and sincerely say "fuck off".
Plenty of room in the pool at Mar A Lago, and the water is great!! my new license plate:
474KING
Freddie has European culture tied to his world views. We Americans don't understand this because we falsely assume everyone values freedom of speech as we do. They do not. They value obedience more than freedom of expression.
How can any sentient adult person, value obedience as a market of adult virtue?
Obedience, is for training small children and animals.
Not free born men and women of the USA.
It's culture. The US values freedom of expression more than other countries. As has been mentioned here, it's one of the reasons why Trump won the votes he got.
The Democrats have little respect for freedom of expression, unless it's to affirm what their experts say.... like Claudine Gay and Tony Fauci. They demanded and got obedience from their loyal voters who were told to shut up and do as they were told. Just like the Europeans.
Entirely agree!
The aristocratic roots run very deep across the pond.
Thou shalt KNEEL, knave!
Obedience and deference are also an intrinsic part of the educational system, which is authoritarian in nature; the more time one spends in the educational system, the more one is conditioned to obey and defer to one's superiors. Hence the cult of the expert, and the expectation that people genuflect to them.
come to Canada and see the idiots we are surrounded by that seem to crave government control. i would have never said this 10 years ago, but becoming the 51st state might be our best option.
It's necessary in the military, which is, in the case of the US, ironically the most powerful defender of freedom.
"How can any sentient adult person, value obedience as a market of adult virtue?"
It's rather alien to me, too. However, obedience to "law", however implemented -- especially in a democracy, however constituted -- means that many benefits of large organization can be realized. Abandoning this "obedience" is often nothing more than societally-destructive selfishness.
💯 As a Canadian( for now!!!) we are traditionally between the US and British sensibility but lean more UK in this area. Its all about being polite ( sorry) and deference- all to hide the aggression underneath( ie we are superior don’t you know) Its tiresome and so Empire
Yes, our obnoxious Canadian superiority complex is on display every day at our national propaganda outlet the CBC. A constant story is the bigoted - look at what the stupid Americans are up to now. Canadians are polite little backstabbers.
Deployed to the far east twice. Once there were Canadians jointly based with our Air Force, and once at a site where a great many British soldiers were passing through. The native guards liked interacting with the Americans and Canadians, but hated the British. We were polite and meshed with local military when possible. The British were generally rude and officious with the locals. I had multiple, volunteer, gate duty with local military guards who were berated constantly by British. They all spoke perfect English, but when the first word out of a British officer was to yell an obscenity, the gate guards suddenly didn't speak English.
Screw "being polite"!
(Nothing personal; I do love Canadians, and especially loved the truckers.)
Our Founding Fathers weren't always "polite," and we aren't, either.
We want the right to say whatever we want, without the government telling us to shut up, lest we hurt somebody's feelings.
We especially want the right to criticize our own government, and its increasingly imbecilic policies.
"They value obedience more than freedom of expression."
This value is what differentiates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from its much stronger and less-authority-trusting American Bill of Rights. No accident that our current PM leans toward Europe at this critical moment for freedom of expression.
Let's not lose sight of what the elites mean when they say they want to stop the spread of disinformation. Anytime we see it proposed we must understand it for what it really is - preventing any information from reaching the general public that does not conform with the controlling elites agenda. Discussion of disinformation should not ever exclude the history of the proven disinformation that was spread by the controlling elites over the last several years. The very people who claim that they desire to control disinformation are the same people who are most guilty of creating and spreading it. And... exactly who gets to choose what disinformation is? That's the larger question, to which we all know the answer, it's them, the arrogant educated ruling elites that get to choose. Their arrogance being so strong that it prevents them from seeing how wrong this attitude is.
I was laughing so hard when Freddie mentioned that "Following" was only added recently. Wait until he learns about pinning custom lists.
X gives you ample tools to manage your own experience.
What people like Freddie seem inclined to want, is to manage other people's experiences.
Agree here Matt. Freedom of speech is held in America as a human right under God. In other nations the government is God. Why some countries in Europe are so intent on supporting Zelenski’s totalitarian rule when the first thing he did was outlaw the news reporters and sources that didn’t fall in line, is beyond my American mind! JD Vance was brave to call this to the front even though the Brits bend more socialistic, as does Canada. To try to control other country voices on the internet is a absurd. I’m glad Biden and the Cisa/Aspen group failed. After all much of the mis, mal, dis stuff was theirs after the real truth came out. Boomerangs. And of course i have a problem with the Assange and Snowden voices of truth still being retaliated against, even when we are now sure their voices warned of evil villains and systems lurking. Hopefully justice will come to some still needing to be yanked out of the darkness and into court (maybe jail)? Let freedom of speech ring loud, if even only in America 🇺🇸!!!!
I tried to listen to Freddie in the past but was repulsed by him. I think he is a little bitch. I am glad Matt found his way to being cancelled as he was probably a lot like Freddie before he was caught out by his peers for seeing the truth Inshallah. I love Matt, and happily subscribe but i often see on ATW or read in these Stacks things that make me think we would be on very different sides if he hadn’t fallen into the fuckery. Freddie is a total snarky bell end that would be on Pod Save America if he lived here. Britain is properly getting fucked and he is worried about us. Piss off mate.
I haven't watched it yet, but Matt is generally too nice.
That's just the way he is!
It matters if the string-pullers for both are primarily based in the US. Be clear - these folks regard Trump as temporary.
If the GOP lose the House, all progress slows. Trump may well prepare the ground well for Vance, or the next GOP president. But the forces that want Trump, RFK, and Tulsi to fail are aligned and fully committed to ending all dissent - across the board.
Betting that GOP pols won't sell out the American public is a really, really bad plan.
Motherf-ckers just banned Public in Europe - https://www.instagram.com/p/DOOPYJqkRPC/
Matt will be on this, but the authoritarians in Europe are running wild.
I agree that Germany's free speech oversteps are scary and that other countries' are too. But the current cases in UK are being misread.
Matt said on Notes that the law affecting Graham Linehan was for "causing harassment, alarm, or distress". Not according to the Met Police who explicitly cited "inciting violence".
GL's tweet is of the format "if you see A, then B is true and that's bad, so do C, D, or punch them in the balls."
The last part may be a joke but if so it's almost fully undermined by A B C and D being completely serious.
In some speech law like defamation there is a concept that you cant be held liable for something that is obviously over the top like saying "Forget what Taibbi says, he rapes aliens from Mars all the time". But that level of clear absurdity if FAR from met by this "joke".
Therefore this is arguably not even protected speech in the USA. It arguably fails the Brandenburg test for portetially inciting violence from one who is in situation A and punches some balls. Such a person could not be called unreasonable for taking the post seriously.
No incitement of lawbreaking is protected speech in the USA. Not Khalil M. telling people to come to Columbia and trespass, not anybody posting on X for migrants to enter the US illegally. The Supreme Court already fully validated that a law banning the latter is constitutional, when it was challenged in USa v Hansen. No one, citizen nor foreign national resident, enjoys the freedom of speech to go on X and post "Hey you migrants in N. Mexico, just surge across en masse!"
I would argue that Lucy Connolly's case, also cited recently by Matt and others, is far over any line and would not be protected speech in the US by any measure. Overall these are terrible examples to make the case that free speech isnt hitting the right balance overseas. Not being able to say a German politician is a prick - that's some real shit there. Not being able to call for vigilantism or directly incite an violent strike against a group or person you dont like is already stuff that fails the Brandenburg test in the USA.
Linehan was arrested under the 1986 Public Order Act. The Met told us this. That’s the act I quoted.
Second, Linehan’s speech most certainly would not be incitement in America. Incitement requires urging a specific person , imminently, to a specific lawless act. The “punch in the balls” statement fails all three tests, and that’s before we get to the part of it being a joke.
I agree Matt. Kelly Green's incitement argument is weak. If I tell someone, "go fuck yourself" am I really "inciting" them to perform such an act on their own person? Well, in the example of urging someone to self fornicate it actually does meet the first two conditions of US legal criteria and possibly the third. But who would look at it as a matter of concern? Please, the Met needs to deal with serious crime and stop being speech bullies.
I like how you started doubtful and then decided it did meet the elements, but it's dumb to charge it. I agree fully, definitely not saying any of this should be charged or should even be the law. Just analyzing the laws we have.
If tame speech like his ever gets recast by SCOTUS as incitement, we'll be in deep doo-doo here...
Also you have been off a few times on First Amendment stuff. You never engaged these points but on Khalil M a while back you cited the Bridges case and left the impression with the phrase "a closely analogous 1945 case about an Australian labor organizer accused of communist affiliation. Not unlike someone like Mahmoud Khalil, Harry Bridges was a foreigner thought to be here on a specious premise, advancing unpopular beliefs and causing trouble." that Bridges was deported for being a communist but that was disallowed. That is a highly misleading picture.
What was wrong in Bridges is that the government had no proof that Bridges was a Communist and relied on hearsay, not that one couldn't deport.
You failed to cite Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, a case later than Bridges where Communists were deported for being Communists and the court found that fully constitutional.
“ Harisiades v. Shaughnessy” was an immigration case and the free speech arguments did not apply. It is off point. The critical issue was executive authority to deport not free speech.
“What was wrong in Bridges is that the government had no proof that Bridges was a Communist and relied on hearsay, not that one couldn't deport.”
You seem to be misusing hearsay.
Hearsay:
1) An out of court statement
2) offered in court
3) by one other that the declarant (original speaker)
4) for the truth of the matter asserted.
Most Anglo/American criminal procedure rules have exceptions to hearsay. Statements against interest are generally amongst those exceptions.
UPDATE - the Met has already punted back to the pols claiming the cops don't understand how to apply the current laws.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/03/graham-linehan-sue-metropolitan-police-trans-tweet-arrest/
For better background (previously posted and liked)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI940uYXB34 "Carry-On Kafka
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGotTAm2g0g "How the cops got the laws wrong"
Have a nice day!
"Second, Linehan’s speech most certainly would not be incitement in America."
Popehat disagreed on how close the call was in the US, which I found surprising.
https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social/post/3lxug5zeutk23
It is not at all surprising. Look around the posts here and see the ones where I lay out my argument better but if the US is a 90 out of 100 on Free Speech, the UK is an 80. This case Falls somewhere in the 88 to 92 Range and we're arguing about which exact number it is, when the UK does plenty of things down around 81 that we're not bitching about right now and really that's where the rubber meets the road. Put slightly less abstractly, hate speech is already illegal there and they can prosecute people for that.
That sucks and I hate it, but this case isn't just going after him for hate speech it's something that, no matter how slightly, it's harder to defend on a free speech basis.
“This case Falls somewhere in the 88 to 92 Range.”
No. Linehan could not be charged with a crime in the US over Tweets.
He can in the UK.
An arrest for humorous and political speech puts this specific act at ZERO. It is entirely indefensible to any advocate of free speech.
If you think that after the Hansen case upholding the law that the US would not possibly prosecute someone with a decent following saying on X "if you find yourself in Northern Mexico but are not a US citizen, just come on across the border where the wall isn't finished" under S 1324 (a)(1)(A)(iv) because there is no specific person involved or they are kind of kidding, you are high.
No need to accuse dissenters of being high. Especially considering how far out of mainstream thinking your expressed opinions are.
You do not understand how far our 1st amendment goes.
Political speech, including satire, is the highest form of protected speech.
Matt’s explanation of the elements of incitement is slightly in error. The speech need not be directed at a specific single listener. Usually, but not necessarily, incitement is directed at a crowd.
So, your analysis is wrong. Further, it lacks all the other elements of incitement as well.
You’ve dug your heels into a losing argument.
The person who is going to protect others’ speech as satire or detect what is a joke and what is not is the one who's admonishing me about using the syntax “if you think this you’re high” as if I seriously accused Matt Taibbi of being high?
Wrong.
Linehan's punch in the balls tweet is so obviously, and so clearly, protected speech under the 1st Amend that it's not even arguable.
Being “over the top” is not the legal test. Generalized advocacy of use of force is protected speech under Brandenburg. Read Brandenburg again.
Men in the ladies room is over the top.
The UK has no first amendment. Not sure why this is not understood.
Over the top is a safe harbor defense. It doesnt meet that. It says "when you are standing in front of the person" so it's not general
Regardless, once we're debating Brandenburg, the speech is in play and has little to do with over the line abuse of free speech by the government. If they were going after him solely for trans hate speech, yes, that's protected fully in the US and it would be much worse. They are citing "inciting violence" though, not "harassment", "bullying", "hate speech" or anything else, and GL admits it's this tweet that's in play. so it's about whether or not he incited violence no matter what. That's a very different free speech picture than criminalizing hate speech is, which the UK *also does* since they don't have protections for hate speech like the US does.
So what the Taibbiverse is doing right now is saying "it's getting so bad over there" citing this incident, when the UK has banned hate speech forever because their free speech laws are significantly to the right of the US's. So on a 1 to 100 scale if the US is a 90 on freedom of speech and the UK is an 80, the claim is "this is so bad, they're acting on a case in the 88-92 range" [and we're all sitting here arguing if it's an 88 or a 92] when they regularly do worse things all the time, in the low 80s. This is not new.
What is new is the shit that Germany does in the 60-70 range and the UK does in the 70-80 range. Much worse stuff than these two cases.
I respectfully disagree. A, B, C, and D can be entirely serious, but I find D to be not an incitement of violence, but encouragement of self-defense, which is an inalienable right of every individual, and completely separate from incitement to violence. The violence in Graham Linehan's example is initiated by a biological male entering a women's bathroom. Her reaction to it is justifiable self-defense.
Danno, has it exact!
If GL qualified it by stating if the person was in fear of harm, sure.
He pre-qualified it by first stating that the very presence of a male in a women's bathroom is de facto an act of violence and abuse.
It's close but not the same. Nobody debates that the Menendez brothers suffered violence and abuse. The debate is whether they had an imminent fear of something when they killed their parents, making it self defense.
Women, smaller, less muscular and less fast than Men, have been given this advice for all time, whenever they must face a would be male predator, in a confined space, shout, make a scene- if all else fails kick them in the balls- it is quite literally our last defense.
Why should women allow men to do whatever they want to us with no recourse whatsoever?
What of our dignity, our privacy, our sense of safety?
And if a man who thinks he is a lady wants to dress up in lady clothes, let him use the male facilities or do it at home- it is aggressive and scary to real women, for big hairy men, to traipse around like Buffalo Bill in the ladies room and taunt us that they will not leave- no matter if they scare or offend us-they also like to threaten us with rape and death if we object, so, this is no ‘phobia’, no irrational fear, but a well-grounded in human biology, across all history and time, justified fear.
Imma give you the win in this argument I’m not engaged in, and I agree with you on.
There’s zero argument that this is defamatory in the US. Who, specifically, was defamed?
There’s also zero argument that Linehan’s tweets meet the US equivalent any criminal act.
“…the Met Police who explicitly cited "inciting violence".
The US equivalent is incitement to eminent lawless action. Despite what the left desperately wants to believe, Trump’s J6 speech falls plenty short of the elements of the crime.
We require both specific intent and realistic expectation that the audience is about to actually do the acts demanded by the speaker and then does them.
The UK apparently doesn’t bother with either of those important elements.
There are two fundamental elements to every crime. Mens rea (criminal intent) and actus reus (criminal act). The UK has apparently done away with the two most fundamental pillars of criminal law.
Without these requirements the criminal law becomes lawless and corrupt.
To add insult to injury, it appears that such speech crimes are selectively applied to those who prefer truth to accepting woke groupthink.
"punch them in the balls" is a juvenile quote. i would never mistake that for a serious threat. you'r out of touch.
You lost the argument when you blindered the judgment on how/what you would do. You’re not the legal standard, unsurprisingly.
Boooo!
Will Linehan have an opportunity to learn who the actual complainant is? Confront his accusers? Or is this now The State v Linehan? How does it work in the UK? Are any of the complainants obligated to show any real harm, or do hurt feeling, alleged denial of someone's perceived truth, or some wild pronouncement meant as humor qualify? It seems to me there is a lot of room for abuse here, and Linehan will be the victim no matter what. Even found not guilty and dismissed he's had to hire counsel, been detained and all of the other costs that go into making sure the process is the punishment. If complaints filed anonymously will be investigated I have a list of Muslim clerics in Manchester . . . but I will wager the law does not go that far.
Any prosecution has the negatives of the government's prosucetorial power, as Aaron Schwartz sadly found out.
If you read Linehan's own substack this week, you'd see he has a very good idea who the complainant was - "I bet I know who made this complaint. Lindsay Watson (demented ex-copper troon who was fired for his online conduct). " This was confirmed by his lawyer. It seems this individual has an obsession with pursuing individuals voicing anti-trans comments.
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/i-just-got-arrested-again?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=16ebzs&triedRedirect=true
Yikes! Thanks.
You are misstating what is necessary for 'incitement' to bypass the First Amendment. It is not simply advocating lawbreaking. It is advocating lawbreaking in a manner and at a time and a place where the lawbreaking will occur *imminently*, not at some unspecified future time and place were a tranny is waving his wang in front of a teenage girl.
Seriously. Are we really arguing that someone here on a student visa should have the right to scream "Death to America" in the face of Americans on their way to class and not have their visa revoked? F that and F them.
Free speech for American citizens. Everyone else should behave like a guest and expect the bum's rush if they don't.
Immigration law here is used to conflate the issue. As Americans cannot be arrested for hatred of the United States, the relevant point -- the actual reason these visa holders are being arrested -- is for speaking their own "plain truths" that the administration and its supporters don’t like. It's pretty damn simple and naked.
Rubio knows better certainly. The Turkish student's case was meat to xenophobes and delegitimized tthe right's claim to be free speech advocates . As always, it's when you defend the rights of those with whom you disagree that your true colors show. Khalil's case is simply not the same situation. He clearly imcited Columbia students through recorded word and deed. International students reside here at the pleasure of the State Department and broader federal government. It's abhorrent that they not be able to speak out on political issues while here. By the same token, pretending that they aren't guests of America and as such shouldn't experience repercussions including deportation if they incite chaos and violence should be obvious.
I agree with Rubio. There was already an organized and violent anti-Israel movement on campuses. Organized and funded by people and NGOs which are not so much supporting the Palestinian cause (they neither understand nor care about it) as they are using it to justify intentionally spreading chaos in order to undermine the US and its institutions. Their real goal is a Marxist dictatorship. Khalil's open and vocal support for the movement alone can and should be sufficient reason for excluding him from the United States.
It was very strange how all the tents were alike across the US. Even the provided meals looked ordered from the same suppliers, from Columbia to UCLA. And the people I saw (at NYU) for the great majority looked like the usual Antifa/ Occupy types that showed up in the past. The students who were relatively a small number mostly were not the radical types but ME students sympathetic to the plight of Palestinian civilians.
Considering the pro-Hamas pro-Muslim Brotherhood exceptionally authoritarian present govt in Turkey it really wouldn't surprise me if the Turkish student affair wasn't more complex than we are allowed to know. There is no doubt about Erdogan's reach here
"He clearly incited Columbia students through recorded word and deed"
Which was what, exactly? Let's get specific, as I observe the conflation flying around on this case and other non-citizen examples is pretty thick. For example, people claiming to be afraid because of hurtful words hurled in confined-space/march protests is pretty weak case of assault. That's the kind of thing the woke have been doing, after all.
Khalil is a foreign national who was the spokesperson for CUAD, which on the Columbia University campus celebrated the slaughter of Jews in October 2023 and again in the anniversary in October 2024, and he was the leader of the takeover of tbe library at Barnard College in March 2025, where pamphlets celebrating Yayah Sunwar and the October slaughter of Jews were distributed. It was two days after this action thst he was arrested for deportation. Get the picture?
Per legalclarity.org: "[I]ncitement is urging another to engage in illegal conduct. ... In the United States, the landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) case established that speech must be directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action, setting a high bar for what qualifies as incitement."
I see the descriptions of hate (still not quoted, just labeled), but still no example of incitement. Did, say, Khalil point to a Jewish student nearby and say "Go get him!"? Did Khalil say "Tomorrow we're meeting to plan the synagogue bombing, come join us"?
Takeover of the library is illegal. He should risk punishment for this. What is the normal punishment? How can he be punished while not suppressing his points of view?
It is also entirely legal in the US, and from my observations is commonly done, to hate and celebrate the slaughter of Gazans, and of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Again, I see no incitement, per the law. Nor do I see any visa holders getting deported for it.
You're citing no incitement of violence but inciting any lawbreaking is sufficient.
The takeover of the library, if he suggested to any to do that, would be an example.
He definitely invited outside protestors to come trespass on Columbia property after the first encampment was ruled clearly illegal. He knew such action was illegal because he took pains to point out that he himself wasnt staying overnight so as not to break the law.
These folks never have any specifics, but I admire your efforts.
This is a gentle suggestion that you look up the word “conflate”. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
"Immigration law here is used to conflate the issue"; "as I observe the conflation flying around on this case"
The conflation I see here, the "fusing of ideas", is (a) derivative de facto speech control (arrest and deportation) as somehow being a kind of (b) de jure speech control (e.g., by some well-understood legal limitation, such as incitement).
As I understand the law, the administration's ability to deport on whim is not, or does not contain, a legal ability to limit speech (as would be the case, e.g., pursuant to incitement), simply because it can *effectively* accomplish that. Many people seem to interpret that it is perfectly normal to "shut up" a visa holder by intent, that it's done routinely for this very reason, and I haven't seen how that's the case.
If you still think I'm not knowledgeable or conscious about something further in the denotation of the word, I welcome your being more specific.
One thing to keep in mind is that a system where the US cant deport anyone here on a student visa who starts publicly agitating against the US - and is fully protected by courts and held to have all right to stay one it becomes about their free speech, quickly get probelematic.
Shortly after that scenario gets to be the reality China and Russia can plant students here on visas and use them as tools against us, with our courts saying they have to stay because we cant stop them as it's now about free speech.
Moreover, I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of those students come from countries where they'd be jailed for uttering far less in the way of dissidence.
Certainly!! Deportation is not denial of freedom of speech. It's denial of where you can speak, somewhat like time place and manner restrictions.
They can speak all they want - back home. If they are given that freedom there!
Free speech is difficult. So is democracy. So is policing. We should be providing adequate the resources to monitor suspicions of illegal activity, but should understand and enforce an absolute hard boundary between speech and action, between surveillance and probable cause, etc., and make these things well-understood again by the public.
We've lost a lot of clarity about it since the 1970s, when we -- officially -- unearthed the abuses of the FBI and CIA. We need a renewed effort in education to understand once again how government *should* work, and loudly scream "NO!" when they fail instead of tolerating the corruption normalization that's taken place. Trump's going at a lot of this now, once again, but his considerable character defects and intelligence blinders constantly get in the way.
I think we generally agree. I think we have generally agreed in the past. You're in the center of the Taibbiverse on this stuff and you're balanced and thoughtful. I try to be too.
Well said, Chris.
You're right. Americans can't be arrested for hatred of the United States.
But non-Americans can be deported.
As they should be. Lie on your immigration forms and you should be removed. As you would be if you lied on a job application.
no it isnt. foreigners arent losing their speech rights. they are having the privelege of being here revoked.
The visa holders are not being arrested. The are being detained to facilitate deportation. Deportation is civil not criminal.
Revocation of a visa privilege is not punishment as long ago decided by the SC, as far back as Wong Wing and other 1800's cases.
this is the key. people also have a right to self governance and that includes not allowing foriegners to invade and effect their political process in any way. they can be removed for any reason, whatever. a foreigner in the country is here by revocable privelege.
Agree. He wasn't arrested for his speech, he was being deported.
They would like to criminalize pointing this out, no doubt.
The "..I felt threatened--was uncomfortable.." grift is in fact an encouragement to snitch out anyone not on board with the WEF/CCP/EU Brussels Davos crowd. (Canadian Bill-C63 wants to make snitching and industry.) Those who care to remember will recall that "emotional discomfort" as a means of destroying lives, careers and political enemies was introduced into the world psyche by our lesbian feminist Marxist friends (now the DEI) and their "..why can't we just kill men.." friends in the MSM who, even after their victim was proven innocent, demanded execution. Likewise understanding that the perps were joined at the hip with, and got rich on American tax treasure, serving avaricious capital and the so called "deep state" will help heal one small fracture in our Republic's reality. The public war on free speech and expression began there. Now 30 citizens a day in Starmer's England?
We the People may be breathing a little easier after the Harris defeat but the perps are still swinging hard. Those boys and girls don't quit: Tax treasure is just so tasty. Those interested might spend a moment with Mike Benz and his explanation of the USAID/State Dept./CIA connection to the "rent-a-riot"/MSM psyop and how Davos billionaires use American tax treasure to cut our Republic's throat while lining their pockets. (Maybe We the People need an NGO od our very own.) Meanwhile free citizens have to request an armed guard to unlock the toothpaste. It's a fk'n psyop.
Truth is light. Demand, support and participate in the solutions oriented truth/fact based national conversation that will create the truth/fact based reality our Republic deserves.
Israel isn’t the United States
My Dad's favorite book as a kid was "A Man Without a Country"
With you on that. But when thinking and speaking crosses over into behavior a line is crossed. Rubio got a bit over his skiis on revoking student visas based solely on words.
No i don’t think Rubio did. This guy was a foreigner masquerading as a student, pushing an riot agenda. He was not an American citizen. That’s a big difference. Kinda like Nuland and her group going to Ukraine to push n agenda to overthrow a duly elected president. Both agendas are wrong. We as foreigners have no business doing this.
But some of them may not hate the US; they hate Israel.
That's what the problem is.
They can hate France, Bulgaria, New Zealand, or Zimbabwe -- but not Israel.
Hear hear!!!! Apples and oranges
The “elites” and would-be censors still don’t understand that many people are so revolted by their behavior that they consider Donald Trump a far better option. This seems to break their brains.
yup, they've had their balls gargled by psyop media for so long they cant mentally unpack that concept in any way.
What is the purpose of a Visa? Why do we even ask a foreign citizen to have one? Here's one answer:
A visa is an official document or endorsement issued by a country's government that allows a foreign national to enter, stay, or work in that country for a specific purpose and duration. Its primary purposes are:
1. Regulate Entry: To control and monitor who enters the country, ensuring compliance with immigration laws.
2. Define Purpose: To specify the reason for the visit, such as tourism, work, study, or family reunification.
3. Ensure Security: To screen applicants for security risks, criminal history, or other concerns before granting entry.
4. Manage Stay: To set conditions, like duration of stay or restrictions on activities (e.g., prohibiting work on a tourist visa).
5. Support International Agreements: To facilitate travel and cooperation between countries based on bilateral or multilateral agreements.
Visas help governments balance national security, economic interests, and international relations while allowing lawful travel and migration.
If non-citizens come to this country to exacerbate strife, it is in the interest of the country's people to refuse a visa to a foreigner or to revoke an existing visa. I suggest that we have enough citizens willing to protest, riot, or intimidate their fellow citizens that we don't have to import them from other countries.
correct they have no right to be here. they are here by extended and revocable privelege, which is as it ought to be. they are not losing a right, they are abusing a right and then losing a granted privelege.
Well then, imagine a future AOC administration where according that administration, "exacerbating strife" includes advocating against men posing as women competing in women's sports or showing up in women's locker rooms. It would then be in the interest of the American people to revoke Graham Linehan's (who is living in Arizona on a visa) visa.
Of course, an AOC administration can move to revoke the visas of people it doesn't like. In fact, it is practically guaranteed to do that. To suppose that an AOC administration would not do that if the current administration doesn't do it is naive. Democrats tried to bankrupt Trump, jail Trump, raid Trump's home, and encourage assassins to shoot him. Trump did none of these things to his opponents.
AOC would remove non-tippers, wrong thinkers, shit posters and anyone making fun of her friends - the brother humper, baldy, fire alarm puller and table cloth wearer.
I have no doubt that he would immediatly be exported if not imprisoned by any dem adminstration, with or without the exacerbating strife argument.
the dems are like the europians, they dont acknowlege or respect anyones natural rights, since they believe rights are only granted by govt. i.e. might makes right
One persons "exacerbate strife" is another person's cry for justice. To obtain justice in reaction to injustices, it is quite commonly needed to stir up peoples' emotions. Look no further than the abolition and US Civil Rights movements, and protests against various wars this country's entire history.
You're missing the point of free speech, by relying for the technicality that since we (the administration and its supporters) *can* legally suppress non-citizens' speech on US soil by arresting/deporting them, that we *should* do it.
Let me repeat, we're a country with over 300 million citizens. We all have free speech rights. People with Visas are guests. We have more than enough homegrown protesters. The purpose of vetting visitors is to prevent people who will exacerbate the strife in our country from entering, and if they create strife while here, to ask them to leave. I realize that this requires an adult attitude, like a Dad telling a child "no." However, we finally have an administration that is able and willing to do that. An administration, incidentally, that just demonstrated the ability and the willingness to do something rather than whine about the global drug trade.
So right. As we argue or debate all these semantics the Muslim brotherhood organizations and their followers further create chaos in the streets, in courts, and influence on the colleges. If you watch the speeches at their meetings, they make crystal clear their goal to be the destruction and takeover of our republic. As we like fools delay actions wondering if we hurt their feelings or if they should have the rights to stay in our home as they plot to burn it down. This is not a drill. It is happening.
"We all have free speech rights. People with Visas are guests. ... this requires an adult attitude, like a Dad telling a child 'no.' "
Guests are not, thereby, inferior humans held on leashes. Either we treat their participation in society as we treat ourselves or we are hypocrites. That means they should be punished for lawbreaking, while at the same time they should be able to speak their minds. No daddy is needed to "mind" them. That also goes for tests of citizenship on the basis of beliefs.
I am much more concerned about provocative statements about flag burning and kicking out naturalized citizens who foment violence than deporting foreign students. Whether you like it or not there is a different standard for that than for citizens. And the EU is not even in the same hemisphere in terms of speech coercion as Trump's actual actions.
How ya figure?
Foreigners have no business “crying for justice” in this country. That is for citizens to do.
Quality comment
Free speech has been dying a slow dead since the creation of “hate” speech, which suggests that everyone should be protected from offenses, especially those in leadership.
Yes, and in the US, the government needs to stay in its lane.... All of these idiot "leaders" talking about the 1A being an obstacle..... Gone too far, for too long.
yes hate speech is a weapon to kill free speech.
Except for women. Not protected by hate speech or the elderly not protected by hate speech or the infirm or children all of the truly vulnerable groups are mot protected by hate speech laws therefore these laws are designed and implemented to protect other groups to whom there is some objection and that is the only thing making them ‘vulnerable’.
Matt, you get a little wishy washy sometimes when you try not to piss off one side or the other. We have the first amendment. Period. You can say what you want when you want without fear of persecution. England is finished. They have 2 recognized judicial systems including Sharia law. People here on green cards who want to shit on America shouldn’t be here. It’s a privilege we allow and can and should revoke if you create unrest and don’t act like you’re a guest here. A green card isn’t the same as being a citizen. I’m sorry but it’s not. This country needs to somehow become a country and if that can’t happen the greatest experiment on earth shall cease to exist and I shudder at what that looks like.
That is fine as long as your side is in charge. I urge you to use your imagination and think of a day when we have a progressive leftist administration. (Just use your imagination on this one.)
we just had a Leftist administration, and we saw what they did - which led to Trump getting re elected
No need to imagine- see the Biden administration.
Per Jefferson, ultimately the people have to enforce that, by elections if possible, by other means if necessary.
We don't need to look to the other for bad decisions, everyone makes them.
Our lack of (anything close to) perfection in discernment and judgment doesn't mean as punishment we should just randomly pick babysitters, or citizens.
That evil exists is not an excuse to destroy morality itself--that sounds like something the bad guy says.
Well said.
'In America heavy-handed digital measures helped re-elect Trump.'
Matt, to clarify, do you really mean that in America *backlash* against heavy-handed digital measures helped re-elect Trump?
Because I know that's what got me to vote Republican for the first time since Jimmy Carter.
Yes, I think people voted against them - I did.
The way you worded it could be interpreted either way :)
I took that same perspective - backlash (against many, many things) helped re-elect Trump. As an aside, I wouldn't vote for another Democrat if threatened at gunpoint.
The parties have swapped places on the evil scale before, and I fully expect they will again, should they survive at all.
yes because power always corrupts. vile psychopathic people will flock to whichever party holds the most power
Power always reveals. As it turns out, there are a few it doesn't change. But for most it does.
Same.
Voted Democratic Party since 1988 my first vote and my whole life through- until 2024.
I voted for Trump.
And I remain glad that I did and delighted with the results: Men are not Women, Children must not be mutilated and given cross sex hormones, Men out of Women’s sports, border sealed and deportations underway, Love of Country an important truth imbedded in military and education.
What is not to love?
I had the same question. I think your interpretation is correct.
I'm an expat living in Germany. My father, an archaeologist, was imprisoned and tortured in Nazi Germany for denouncing the Hitler Youth movement. Were he still alive, he would be horrified. So glad he does not have to witness this dystopian insanity.
Just to make sure of the reasoning here: The Yookay has a problem with arresting working people by the tens of thousands annually for saying people with testicles are men but Elon Musk makes fun of them for that idiocy, therefore the problem is Elon? Also, how are things going with the decades of mass rapes of British children Freddie? Got any cops to spare for that little matter?
That sums it up. But the UK has an enormous inferiority complex, especially with regard to the United States. They have a lot of national pride, and artful commentary that takes this fact into account could be much better received.
"but also clear bad signs (Marco Rubio using AI to scan social media of legal visitors, having the head of X in a high quasi-state position, etc). "
How is this fundamentally different from having consular officers manually reviewing articles in local newspapers, in foreign countries, written by visa applicants? And then denying them visas based on anti-American content of those articles? Nobody can seriously argue that some guy in Yemen who publicly professes hatred for the United States should be given a visa. So why is using AI to scan social media any different? AI is just a tool - the relevant point is that people who profess hatred for this country should not be allowed in.
It’s scanning the people already admitted that’s controversial.
not to pick nits, but as an example if someone lies on the visa application (association with certain groups, etc), but now the gubmint uses AI to find their lies it makes the previous lying ok?
Matt, I read everything you write (and even pay to subscribe, believe it or not), and generally agree with you on most things (even though I suspect my politics are considerably to the right of yours - for example, I have generally come around to your views on Ukraine, even though initially I though Biden's policies were a very poor approximation of what "the correct policy" might be).
But this is one of two or three issues where you seem to be blinded by your biases - with all due respect. Your feelings on this issue seem to be based on the simple fact that many of the current so-called "victims" of this State Department practice are anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, and your own views are also quite visibly and very openly anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian.
But setting that aside, consider the logic of it.
What difference does it make if a foreign national is here, or not here, for purposes of him maintaining a visa, or getting a visa? He has no *right* to be here. His presence here is entirely a privilege, that can be withdrawn at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. Just as a guest whom you allow to enter your house - you can tell them to get the hell out of your house because you don't like their stated or suspected intentions, or because you don't like their table manners, or because you don't like their views on Saudi and Mauritanian slave markets currently operating there, or because you don't like their lisp, or because their body odor reminds you of a Hamas terrorist. You don't need to justify yourself to anybody - it's YOUR house, and if YOU feel that someone's body odor is that of a Hamas terrorist, then it's YOUR absolute right to tell them to leave - now, right this second.
The U.S. State Department, as our representative, has an absolute right to deny visas, and yank visas, from those whose presence it deems undesirable - for any reason, or for no reason at all. This is not a First Amendment issue in any way, shape or form. Every one of these people can say whatever they want, in any form they want, to whoever they want - once they return to their own countries. It really is that simple.
None of this is to minimize Europe's unfortunate descent into censorship hell - but we cannot seriously argue that we are on the same road to hell because we want to eject pro-Hamas spokespeople who are foreign nationals from our country.
They're not "admitted" to anything. They are not citizens or permanent residents. They are here on terms.
Why? If they would not be admitted if this was known, why should they stay once it is discovered? How illogical.
The problem with pieces like this is: in an effort to not alienate Taibbi's former liberal base, he treats bad ideas as if they are serious ideas. Europe is lost. Trump's enthusiasm to restore order does not compare. Flag burning law is not arresting dissenters of public policy. They will never equate. Weakness of personality driven media is fear of offense, greed of getting liberal audience = weak takes, like suggesting the current administration bears a hint of the false rhetoric used by the Left.
Restoring order cannot be used as an excuse to suppress speech. Period. Unless clear and strenuous accommodation is made to allow the speech while suppressing actual disorder, the con is clear.
So let riots run roughshod over our cities in the name of free speech? So long as they’re chanting “death to America,” they’re allowed to destroy everything in their path?
"So let riots run roughshod over our cities"
What part of my "while suppressing actual disorder" do you not understand?
The first sentence, wherein you contradict that statement.
There's no contradiction. The first sentence, in fact, protests the conflation of the two concepts. "Restoring order" is not the same thing as "suppressing speech", and the two things should be identified and dealt with separately. One can restore order while guaranteeing a peaceful platform to express the speech.
Getting into the weeds here, but 'restoring order' is subject to interpretation by whoever is is doing the 'restoring'. We talk of a slippery slope? This is indeed a very slippery one. I think a definition of what that slope entails in warranted.
First, you can't have freedom of speech in the first place unless public order is maintained. So the latter has to be prioritized in cases where the principles are in tension, in the world of "is" rather than the world of "ought"
Second, in the case of public "protests", we have a long-proven method for managing things like this. The authorities keep an eye on the proceedings, and when things get out of hand, they read the riot act, after which everyone who is out there indulging in their freedom of speech is in the middle of an illegal assembly and is subject to arrest and prosecution for that. You don't get to say "but, *my* freedom of speech is very, very important and I'm not throwing burning gasoline at the cops, so nobody can be tear-gassed while I'm speaking." Speech is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Your speech is not being suppressed. You won't be punished for saying "off the pigs" two minutes ago. You're being arrested for being in an illegal assembly. It's that simple.
During the George Floyd riots, the police did this with great restraint and professionalism. It's not the protesters' fault that the bad actors started a riot, but it is also not the cops' fault that there was a riot at that place. It was their job to do something about that and they did. Meantime, tens of thousands of people had their perfectly legal and unmolested public say on the matter, in places that were not inside of illegal assemblies. Their views were thoroughly aired and discussed in the public discourse. These views were unpopular to many, but none of those protestors were harmed.
Complaining of "corruption" because the cops didn't consult you on how they could do the best possible job of facilitating your freedom of speech rights when they were hard at work suppressing riots, speaks to me of a basic lack of civic understanding. Rights and responsibilities go together. You have a right to free speech, but you have a responsibility to support public order so that everyone can have their free speech. I don't understand why this is so difficult.
Give an example
Ours is to decide, on balance, whether we want the majority of the policies by a given administration. The courts will obviously protect flag burners (it's been decided). The courts are NOT protecting UK dissenters, and the tyrannical rule of the Labour party. They will be ejected soon, and replaced with one with looks a lot more like Trump 2.0, and Brittish citizens will rejoice.
Yes, I agree the situations are not equal in danger, but both speech violations should rightfully be protested.
This was my way of saying I’m concerned about Trumpian abuses but I don’t worry too much yet, because I seem them as relatively minor compared with the other template in Europe.
What idiocy. Basic social order is what government is for.
I said nothing against the need for restoring order. Please re-read carefully what I wrote.
The Aspen Institute and its conference is WEF on American soil. What a bunch of fascist twats.
Anyone traveling to the US to attend one of these sort of conferences and advocate for those measures should not be given entry. Far more damaging than a student advocating for Palestine.
'...the Democrats’ repeated efforts to institute European-style speech codes made future prospects under Kamala Harris look not so hot.'
Brilliant understatement.
The elites have lost control of the narratives and they know it. Here in the USA the narrative was shaped by the big three TV networks the NYT and WaPo. The internet spawned Twitter and they thought they had control of Twitter until Musk bought it and exposed the rot via Matt Tabbi Et. Al. So while we have our 1St Amendment rights to protect us the folks in Europe do not and in fact view the concept as foreign. So the Elites in Europe are going to use the power of the state to squash any and all dissent. All leftist politicians will crush any dissent because their worldview is built upon nothing but platitudes and lies. Reality will always destroy them.
In time the Muslims will come to power in these formally liberal intellectual societies. They will adopt Shiria law and outlaw hundreds of years of English common law traditions. The fools in charge now will be the first ones that will be wiped out because they are so weak thankfully I will not live too see it happen but it will happen unless there is a violent uprising from the actual true natives of Europe But in reality the people that would have done that are here in the United States or at least their off spring are.
Reality - Isn’t it great to be a sometimes ornery colonial?! I have always felt fortunate my ancestors braved the seas to forge a new way of life.
My Ancestors came over before the Revolution and a son of the original man fought in the Revolution. Just think of how it was back then to leave and never to see anyone you ever knew again to journey over the Atlantic Ocean in those tiny sailing vessels to go to a world you knew nothing about and could die a horrible death. just so you could live as a free man vs a vassel to some ruling elite thugs who could kill you tomorrow or take away anything you had accomplished. Those independent minded folks are all here or at least their ancestors are. The weak sheep stayed in Europe
Reality Speaks - I couldn’t agree more! As much as I like them, our several sets of European friends have a different mindset than most of us do - about all sorts of things. And we formed our Constitution to reflect that, thank goodness!
I only found out about ten years ago when we lived in New England that one of my direct ancestors sailed in 1629 on the ship Abigail with his two brothers and that they were some of the original settlers of Charlestown, MA. I have thought so much since then about that journey and about their lives during that time period. We truly do have much to be thankful for that they had such pioneer spirit and fortitude. We’re all blessed to have them as ancestors!
I agree to a point as I also am descended from many who came to the New World to express their religion freely, most of them Quakers. That said, by your argument, all people in Australia whose ancestors were criminals brought over in ships from the UK are currently criminals. 😉
Need a correction: Pavel Durov is CEO of Telegram, not Signal
Yes, good catch.
"Free speech" in America has been students inciting violence against Jews and holding up campuses. I also am not sure any country in the world allows you to come in and on a student visa advocate for a group like Hamas that has been declared a terrorist group (who threatens the US as well as Israel). These anti-Jewish narratives are getting Jewish people killed like that couple and others. And while we might put up with that from citizens, we do not have to from visa visitors. That is not the same as just "speech." Not believing men are women is hardly the same. I know from personal experience that trans people are mentally ill and there's much more to the illness than thinking you are in the wrong body. Adults have a right to live and dress however they want; they do not have a right to normalize it and abuse our children, make us all say it's normal or they are going to shoot up schools and more. Hamas is not the same as all Muslims.
I think it's a mistake to draw a line between the incumbent elites of Europe and the United States on this issue. They share the same goal, which is silencing all speech that contradicts the Narrative, and they're all talking to each other at their little discussion fora in Davos or wherever about how they can collaborate to work around each others' laws to get what they want. What's happening in Europe is what the entire Democratic party and most of the Republicans want, but don't think they can get away with (yet).