Why Republicans Are Turning Against Free Speech - The Atlantic
By: The Atlantic
| As the Republican Party evolves from a party focused on individual liberty and limits on government power to a party that more fully embraces government control of the economy and morality, it is reversing many of its previous stances on free speech in public universities, in public education, and in private corporations. Driven by a combination of partisan animosity and public fear, it is embracing the tactics that it once opposed. |
| By David French |
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The American right has lost the plot on free speech.
April 11, 2022Share
About the author: David French is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the author of its newsletter The Third Rail. French is also a senior editor at The Dispatch .
Sign up for David’s newsletter, The Third Rail, here.
The American right has lost the plot on free speech. The passage of Florida's House Bill 1557, which bans "classroom instruction" on "sexual orientation and gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade and in a manner that isn't "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" in all grades, K-12, is merely the latest in a string of what the free-speech-advocacy organization PEN America has called "education gag orders" that have been proposed by Republicans and passed by red-state legislatures from coast to coast.
As the Republican Party evolves from a party focused on individual liberty and limits on government power to a party that more fully embraces government control of the economy and morality, it is reversing many of its previous stances on free speech in public universities, in public education, and in private corporations. Driven by a combination of partisan animosity and public fear, it is embracing the tactics that it once opposed.
To understand the transformation of Republican legal priorities, one need not turn back the clock very far. For more than 20 years, the dominant conservative mantra in education could be summed up in two words: free speech . The reason for the emphasis on free speech was crystal clear—college campuses had enacted speech codes at a breathtaking rate.
In the effort to make campuses more welcoming to historically marginalized communities, colleges promulgated speech regulations that were designed to eliminate hate speech and other communications that members of university communities deemed offensive.
Although the impulse behind these codes was virtuous, their legal application was profoundly problematic. University speech codes tended to possess three salient characteristics. First, they were aimed directly at the suppression of words and ideas. Second, they were usually broad and vague, leaving teachers and students with little guidance as to the law's true meaning. And third, they typically relied on the subjective feelings of community members for enforcement.
To give you a concrete example, here are parts of a speech code I successfully challenged in federal court in 2003: "The expression of one's beliefs should be communicated in a manner that does not provoke, harass, intimidate, or harm another" and "no person shall participate in acts of intolerance that demonstrate malicious intentions toward others."
For students of the First Amendment, the problems with this language were obvious. What is an "act of intolerance"? How does one define provocative speech? The speech code did not say. A robust marketplace of ideas simply cannot exist if my free-speech rights end the instant another person feels offended by my words.
A speech code doesn't have to be illegal to be problematic. Private universities have broad authority to regulate speech (the First Amendment protects citizens only from government censorship, not from private regulation). But speech codes are antithetical to the mission of American education, a mission that the Supreme Court has described as preparing students "for active and effective participation in the pluralistic, often contentious society in which they will soon be adult members."
. . . .
But here's the reality of the First Amendment: No viable constitutional doctrine declares "Free speech for me and not for thee." Every single free-speech win for a conservative corporation or individual is also a win for progressive liberty. Each and every First Amendment case mentioned above expanded the zone of American freedom.
That was the problem. It turns out that all too many Republicans want to maximize their own freedom and minimize their opponents'. Why? For many of the same reasons advanced by the architects of campus speech codes: Some ideas are allegedly too dangerous to be shared.
And that brings us back to the education gag orders. According to the PEN America database, more than 100 pending state bills would limit or constrain free speech in public education. The bulk of these bills attempt to regulate speech regarding race. Framed as "anti-critical race theory" bills, they typically purport to ban the instruction or inclusion of certain "divisive concepts" in public-school classrooms, in college classrooms, and sometimes in public employment or government contracting.
. . . .
Florida's H.B. 1557 suffers from each of the classic flaws of a speech code. On its face, it's aimed at speech and ideas regarding "sexual orientation and gender identity." Key terms such as instruction and age appropriate are left undefined, which leaves teachers uncertain about the law's scope. And it explicitly grants a parent the right to sue a school district if his or her "concern" is "not resolved by the school district."
To consider the potential breadth of the law, imagine that a young student asks a teacher why his or her classmate has two mothers or two fathers. If the teacher responds with a factual, value-neutral response, is he opening his school district to litigation? After all, answering classroom questions, even when not directly related to the curriculum, fits within the plain meaning of the term classroom instruction .
No court has yet ruled on whether the law is unconstitutional. Although federal courts are protective of the free-speech rights of college professors, they've taken a much dimmer view of the rights of public-school teachers. States enjoy broad (though not unlimited) authority over public-school curricula. But the fact that a restrictive law might be constitutional does not render it just or wise.
Equality Florida, an LGBTQ-rights organization, and a coalition of students, parents, and teachers have filed suit against Governor Ron DeSantis and the Florida Department of Education, arguing that the law is so broad and vague that it violates the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because teachers don't have fair warning of the law's true scope.
Educational gag orders represent only part of the right-wing censorship wave. On Thursday, PEN America issued a report detailing "1,586 instances of individual books being banned, affecting 1,145 unique book titles." The group's count includes "removals of books from school libraries, prohibitions in classrooms, or both, as well as books banned from circulation during investigations resulting from challenges from parents, educators, administrators, board members, or responses to laws passed by legislatures."
And if we leave the world of education, red-state legislatures are now passing laws regulating corporate speech. Both Texas and Florida have passed sweeping statutes designed to regulate how social-media companies moderate user content. Both laws have been blocked in court.
Compounding the free-speech challenge, the online right directs immense vitriol at those conservatives who dissent from the culture of censorship. Most notably, social media filled with claims that anyone who disagreed with the scope and wording of H.B. 1557—even if they agreed that young children should not receive instruction on sexuality—was a "groomer." This tweet, from DeSantis's spokesperson, is representative:
If you're against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don't denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children. Silence is complicity. This is how it works, Democrats, and I didn't make the rules.
— Christina Pushaw (@ChristinaPushaw) March 4, 2022
Grooming , however, is a word with a meaning, specifically referring to using "manipulative behaviors" to gain access to victims. While activists are trolling online—knowing full well that they're abusing the term—they're also connecting with the language of the QAnon conspiracy theory, which is based on the claim that gangs of pedophiles have infiltrated the highest reaches of American government. Accusations of pedophilia or grooming can be deadly serious, and they're directly related to violence and threats of violence across the nation.
. . . .
In my own school district, a group called Moms for Liberty filed a formal complaint under the state's anti-CRT law challenging the inclusion of Ruby Bridges Goes to School: My True Story and Martin Luther King Jr. and the March on Washington in the young-elementary curriculum. It also objected to the famous Norman Rockwell painting The Problem We All Live With , which depicts Bridges guarded by law enforcement as she courageously desegregates New Orleans's schools.
Those books and that painting aren't CRT. They depict history, but that history is offensive to some local parents, and in the state's expansive anti-CRT law, they perceived a legal hook for their complaint.
The right is now in the process of unlearning liberty. After decades of litigation and legislation, it largely gained what it wanted: a much more free marketplace of ideas. But it is difficult for a commitment to liberty to survive partisan animosity. If you hate or fear your opponents enough, it is hard to resist the siren song of using raw state power to silence their voices.
Yet censorship is inconsistent with American pluralism. Speech codes and book bans undermine one of the core purposes of American education. We send our kids to school not just to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic, but to learn how to be citizens in a liberal democracy, and a core value of that democracy is a commitment to free speech—for me and for thee.
Tags
Who is online
50 visitors
A quote from a very interesting and energetically written article—loaded with 'quotable. See the full article for greater reading enjoyment and understanding of the issue.
I'm all about that "s"!
A quote: "No state statute should make teachers think twice before including King quotes in a course."
A very interesting "CRT" moment just happened there. . . or, did it?
Did anyone claim it was?
I don't see it. Enlighten me!
President Barack Obama had the painting installed in the White House , in a hallway outside the Oval Office , from July to October 2011.
That's Ruby Bridges at 6 years old in a Norman Rockwell painting depicting integration of an elementary school, and Ruby Bridges all grown up in 2011 with President Obama and his staff with the photo on display outside the Oval Office.
If the photo is good enough for the White House, why is it offensive to a group called "Moms for Liberty" in Florida?
Is this Norman Rockwell painting (with the slur "Ni**er captured as graffiti on the wall) offensive to you?
Would this picture
famous Norman Rockwell painting The Problem We All Live With and this first black president or any first minority group president or civic leader and the discussions they would generate at the grade school level, offend - YOU?
Well, where are our free speech warriors today?
So since some parents don't want their kids to be taught that just because they were born white they are automatically racist and should feel guilty over that and some parents do want their 5,6,7and8 year old kids that it is ok if boy can be girls and girls can be boys, they are against free speech? Would you feel similarly if they were showing "Debbie Does Dallas" or "Deep Throat" to your first grader or that they are told they "Island of Doctor Moreau" is true and animals can be turned into humans?
No I don't know anyplace that is doing that now.
Okay, porn films like snuff films like skat films are not designed for grade schoolers. As for what white parents don't want their kids to be taught, I would suggest those white parents consider a change of heart as to what minority kids of color are experiencing fighting back against conservatives who which to ignore their status in society or their existence in reality. As for the 'Doctor Moreau' and his animal menagerie, yes, let's allow it to get out that a group of whites in certain founding states of our country did know the meaning of the word, "chattel" and really did believe Blacks were better off in the role of dumb, "field," beasts.
When we treat demonstrable truths as facts and not as myth we end up better.
But what about free speech. Transgenderism and homosexuality are not appropriate subjects to be taught to children either.
Define what or how you mean, trangenderism and homosexuality are being TAUGHT to children? For example, is there a syllabus? Or, there classroom handouts you are aware of on the topics? Please inform me, because I have not read this!
They're not being 'taught' either, like CRT.
arkpdx, I'm still here waiting. . . . My break is getting real close, though!
Agreed. No adult teacher or outside professional in his or her legal right mind wants/plans/intends to 'sexualize' any child/ren. Nor partner with any other adult/s in doing so.
If that is the case then what is the point of opposing the law?
Again with the frustrating double-talk. It's conservatives who 'karen song' about too many laws on the books and the denial of freedoms because of it! Now, here you conservatives are will a superfluous law, though it is not, you have it there to buck and control liberal instructors and student discussion to be more to your narrow understanding of human gender in the 21st century. I have told you conservatives time and time again and I will continue to do so - y'all are meddlesome and petty all at the same time. And conservatives try to pull off so many controlling activities half thought through that as a group you make emotional blunders that are wide open for a court challenge. And at the least exposes your conservative 'backside' as not be as interested in max freedoms for citizens as you are for meddling in lives that could not care what they "h" you all are doing in your private silos away from the public.
Human gender is the same as it always b males are male and female are females. Just because someone figured how to castrate men and give them a hole and how to spay women and give build them a pole. Does not change anything. Men are still men and women are women. And they were born that way and we're not assigned as one or the other at birth
"Dr." Conservative thank you and your fellows for that 'irregular' analysis. Now then, what does the rest of the medical community have to say on this? Wait, you did inquire of other medical professionals and social sciences viewpoints to help you form your assertion, right?
Arkpdx I think it is swell that whatever forces in life made life so simple for you. I could only wish one other thing right now for you from nature gifting pool: an ability to empathize with others who are not heterosexually secure as you!
In order for you to insult me I must first value your opinion. I don't! But it was a nice try.
I wasn't insulting conservatives, arkpdx. I value you conservatives, I really do. Y'all got all the right stuff given to you from the 'gifting' pool. All you got to do is follow a set of relatively simple life rules in this world and voilá y'all are 'in it to win it.' All the trappings of success in a 'hetero' world are there for the selecting.
I asked you @6.1.7 who you are calling "mentally ill" and you sidestepped your responsibility to yourself to be clear.
That could be an insult in the making if you completed it, except for one good reason: society has evolved to understand that homosexuals and trans-youth are not 'ill.' What we are is permanently beset with conservatives whom do not have enough in them after all these many years, battles, sagas, crises, to leave other people freedoms and liberties to them to legally figure out and enjoy.
Furthermore, that's your second time calling liberals "unfit" coupled with @6.1.18's child abuse retort.
So tell us arkpdx, just how long have you conservatives felt this way about homosexuals and liberals? What other groups are out there (women, blacks, Native Americans, secularists . . . ) that conservatives want to manage and fatigue for life?
Oh for about 200,000 years or so. Maybe longer but I can't speak for Cro-Magnon or other earlier hominids.
Oh secularists, atheists socialist, and communists come to mind.
Do quote where I specifically said that because I have never called liberal parents unfit, only those that would mutilate there children by transitioning to the opposite sex. I do think many liberal parents would be thrilled to have one of there children be a tranie and would accept it as an honor, I don't think all liberal parents feel this way.
Do you mean like our freedom of speech and the freedom to have different views and opinions that you? By freedom to practice my religion as I wish without interference from the left? Like my freedom to keep and bear arm if I do choose? You mean those kind of freedoms and liberties?
So all we have to do is give up our cherished values and beliefs and adopt yours and become liberals and we would be Ok with you? That isn't going to happen in this millennium. How about this. You adopt our values and beliefs and become conservative.
I don't have to direct quote you. You're calling liberals unfit all the time using other words and phrases. And, a rose is a rose even by another name, . . .or phrase! You conservatives can't take credit for your mental wellness, just because you sleep with the opposite sex. You can't even take credit for the offspring which comes from the sex. You can take credit that you raise and provide shelter and a measure of "home training" for you child/ren, - which if you extrapolate backwards and forward are some of us.
Now, I'm sitting here thinking. It's probably good that conservatives don't have mentally ill, homosexual children,(in reality they do) because of bias and judgement conservatives would probably insist their own flesh and blood live an outright lie or, conservatives would probably try to take their child/children to a psychologist or team of psychologists only to find out that those doctors are not trained to treat homosexuality! (Where is a quack when you need one pronto?!)
Then the yelling, beatings, mental and emotional harming in the home begins in earnest - leading to children who are for all intends and purposes 'parent-less' despite living flesh and blood nearby. So they come to school, talk, and act out of frustration. But now the teachers are shunning them, because they were instructed that: "Parents care and know best how to raise children." Finally, in utter frustration the child, the children lay down and die.
Afterwards, I am not absolutely sure a funeral can be held, because of shunning. And who would come to a homosexual's service anyway? I mean really. /s
Curtain draws. Drama ends.
All of this 'production' written off an indirect quote!
This is you conservatives. This is your doing. And you do it 24/7 to EVERYBODY who disagrees with living conservatively.
All you do is make shit up and then try to pin it on others. That they didn't say what you claim and is a huge lie matters to you not. As long as you can accuse someone, for you that is enough to show guilt. No evidence, no proof. Just how leftist of you. and inaccurate accusation will do.
And that I about 99.9% true. There may be exceptions but it is not a teacher's job to raise anyone else's children and to decide what medical procedures and what psychological treatments they get. It is not the schools job to decide what pronouns to use for someone else's children. The schools and teachers are there to teach reading and writing and arithmetics history not that it is Ok and normal for Heather to have two mommies or Johny to have two daddies or that it is ok for Billy tto want to wear dresses and be called Janey.
No, do not become liberals. Stay conservatives. Live your lives your way. Let us live ours right beside you in your midst. And do not wage so-called, "culture wars," against liberals. Because it has a 'chilling effect' and other unplanned for harms upon all children and adults alike on many sides of the issues. When we are all only trying to find our way in this world, people much like yourselves brought us into!
Indirect quotes that capture context and meaning are valid, arkpdx. Many people do not say what they actually mean, but give off indicators, signs, and signals. These things are not that difficult to pick up from transmissions. So pretend you didn't just write:
Commonsense informs me that you did write it. And the context @5.1.11 informs me you meant to write it just the way it comes across. Conservatives think homosexuals are mentally ill, without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Much to the shame of homosexuals, we allowed ourselves to believe that we were mentally ill for way too long in this country, too. But, not anymore!
Conservatives, it's you all that have a sickness called hatefulness. I am going to keep exposing it to the world too.
Are you suggesting that conservatives have to deal with homosexual and trans children at home? Be clear. Or what is your concern?
Conservatives do not have homosexual children /s
Heterosexual children do not live proper lives as homosexuals. So, are you trying to save homosexual youth from themselves?! It makes no sense what you are saying.
Its a specious argument. That is, it sounds reasonable, but is not logical when you get beneath the surface of the statement.
Unless you are really SUGGESTING conservatives can have homosexual youth in their households, and these youth get treated as if they are mentally ill, given treatments of quakery, finally shunned, and casted out into 'outer darkness.'
It is the left that does not let us live side by side unless we go by their rules. If you don't believe it just ask the several wedding photographers that didn't want to follow their rules. Go to Gresham, Oregon and find the shop if Sweet Cakes By Melissa. Ask the owners of Chic-Fil- A about the boycott against the because they dated to oppose the lefts position on I California proposition. Ask Ben Shapiro and Laura Ingram, the professor from Michigan that was to speak at MIT and other conservative speaker that had riot near the venues they were to speak at. Ask the people that went to Trump rallies only to be assaulted when it was over. Ask the people that were assaulted and had their MAGA hats stolen. Ask the shop keepers who's businesses were looted, vandalized and burned in left wing riots because Hillary lost in 2016 tell that to the people like Tony Ngo who was assaulted by left wingers and The men that were shot for no reason then one was because he got out of a truck that was involved in a peaceful counter protest in front of his downtown apartment and one because he went to assist a woman being assaulted by liberal protestors
And you will continue to do so lacking any evidence or proof just false accusations and innuendo because we'll that's just the liberal way
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. I said (and read this very carefully) that it is not the schools place to decide what's best for the child especially those children in K-4. Unless there is some obvious suspicion of physical abuse it is not their concern. It is not their place to encourage or discourage for thata matter, a child's sexual being.
It's time on both sides to let all that junk go. Because as you can tell by now it's get nobody nowhere. Unless you count the hurt! Do like I suggest, drop your rocks and I will drop my 'defense shield.' Trust has to begin somewhere. How about with you?
That said, I do not for one moment wish you to think that I support conservatives coming into the public domain where all citizens are welcome (up to a point mind you) and telling liberals what they want accept as freedom of expression or freedom of speech. Public venues are "protected spaces" for the public.
If conservatives display hate, I am going to show it up, arkpdx!
Oh I got that part. Now a question, because I am curious. Are conservative children to your knowledge ever homosexual or trans-youth?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Sometimes.
But liberal hate is ok with you.
They very may be but is not up to the school to encourage or discourage that behavior. It is not the place of the school to decide. My nephew was gay and everyone knew it. His parent, who are as right wing as I am accepted him because he was their son and loved him unconditionally. I disapproved but said nothing because he never asked me. If I did I would have told him the truth .shout I even got to be friends with his partner.
On the other hand a trans kid is different. A minor child should not be allowed to begin transition at all. A 3,4,or 5 year old barely can decide what they want for lunch much less able to make the decision to change their gender. They should not be allowed to dress as the opposite sex and should not be given the choice what their names are or what pronouns they use.
No. Hate is not okay with me period. And liberal hate without the standard provocation is not okay with me. My best advise is conservatives need to stop making liberals miserable - just because they can. And, only then, can we see liberals standing all alone ahead of everybody and everything 'throwing' at conservatives. Drop. Your. Rocks. I'll. Take. Down. My. Defense. Shield.
Excuse me, but there are licensed trained professionals 'working' in this field. I am not one of them and I don't try to play one on NT. Frankly, I don't understand the "urgency," parents who are emoting about it on behalf of their child/ren, or the administrations that are currently having to deal with it, either as a 'melt down' in school or as absenteeism, or as violence erupting on campuses, or parents' abuse of a child/ren.
My point is in a diverse society, this is what we pay professionals to deal with in their field of study; so I say let them. Certainly, as long as it is clear they are doing no harm. So what if they get a youth wrong on a lower percentage basis? We're dealing with raw emergent information and data here! They know this. They likely have studied and reviewed the odds. Yet, more times than not as the professionals looking at the data they get this right.
As for the homosexual male and his partner, that's interesting you described your nephew as "was gay. . . " but then went on to befriend his lover (husband)?
Personal note. I do appreciate that a small 'crack' has opened up in front of both of us to really talk.
When are you going to stop making conservatives miserable?
My nephew's partner was a nice guy and I could have been friends with him gay or not. I also liked his dog. (better than him actually but I feel that way about most dogs). As a man friend there were no issues. I really don't care much about what an adult does as long as their behavior does not effect me. As I said I did not approve of my nephew's lifestyle but he was an adult when he came out and he never asked my permission. Neither did his partner and in both cases I don't think it would have mattered.
My nephew died of AIDS and he took very good care of him at the end stages.
And for you info I also know a guy transition to become a woman. Don't care about him either except I am pissed because you can still tell that he could grow a real nice beard and wants to get rid of it and hear I am at 68 and candy barely grow a goatee. Again he never ask for my ok or even what I thought about what he was going to do. I did talk to his mother who accepted it.
Mm-hmm. Thanks for being open and sharing. Discussion can bring people closer, and closer, when it is sincere and real. And I trust you can see I am really 'listening' to you.
Liberals are probably more caring and feeling about conservatives. Do you think I am right?
It is the contrary nature of reality I guess, because I am pretty sure she would give away those hairs on her face if she could with gusto! Desperately. It's a demonstration of our realities as beings that we can apparently can not be totally happy here.
My most passionate reality (which shall never be because I am old now) as a homosexual male would be to have a heterosexual man to fall in love with me. But that can't be. Because, by definition, heterosexual men don't bond SPIRITUALLY with other men. Homosexual men spiritually bond with other men.
I would have to become a woman (and when I was young I thought about it more than a few times), of course the medical procedure was 'raw' untested, and then uncertain and experimental (in its infancy) and I wouldn't venture doing it. So you can see there is a tiny part of me that can understand a child of a certain age knowing itself and acting on that knowing. Some kids are plain-spoken that way.
I could tell a story about this guy in high school who committed to girl's clothing from sun up to sun down. He was fiercely into it. And it won him acceptance in approval. Though for the life of me, I was perplexed as to how he pulled the feat off in a 'bible' city. And yet, I am sure there were issues he was not expecting - maybe it was the girls and women that gave him the worse "headaches"? (This was before trans-youth as we hear and know of it now.)
As I said, we all are dealing with something.
Republicans are against free speech?
Are you going to tell me that it is Republicans and conservatives that are rioting in front of venues where liberal speakers are scheduled to talk. It is conservative owners of social media sites that are denying conservative people from their sites? Is it conservatives that are boycotting and suing businesses that dare oppose their opinions? Is it conservatives and Republican calling for celebrities and commentators to be fired from their jobs for disagreeing with them? Please tell me when and where this is happening because I don't remember it being done.
Is it a fact that republicans and conservatives have sided with purveyors of misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, gaslighting, and propaganda? Evidentially true or false? And "h" no we will not be spending our quality time here going over a mountain of evidence you and others can research in your "free" time.
If the above is acceptable, why would we want to make communists tactics of communication acceptable forms of U.S. media platforms and our standards? Can't you see what those 'performances' have done to a place like Ukraine?
C'mon, help me claw our way back to the top! While we still are under our own power.
So you really have nothing but the talking point handed to you and no evidence to back up any of you BS accusations. You can't even answer any of the questions I asked. And you claim the conservatives are passing on misinformation and propaganda? Oh please!
No it is not a fact at least it is not to the level that the liberals and democrats engage in them.
The left has been engaging in communist tactics of communication for years. The censorship of conservatives on Facebook an until now Twitter and other social media outlets is proof of that.
There is nothing for me to tell you, arkpdx! If conservatives want to be delusional conversationalist, you will not be listened to for longer than it takes to make such a determination. I am not on any campuses to here on a regular basis what is being delivered or turned down. I suspect you are not either. If/since you are not don't even try to hold my feet to the fire on some talking point you nor I both are likely not equipped to debate.
The points I shared @6.1 are out in the open, and they occur right here on NT!
And further more I am no more obligated to appease your sense of questioning than you are to appease mine. This is an exchange; a discourse, not an "I do you; now, you do me" —intercourse.
I got a Tweet this morning from of all people, Donald Trump! Thanking Elon Musk for buying the franchise and obviously lifting the rule that keeps him off of it. So, what shall we see from that conservative you claim by sunrise PST? A humble spirit? A combatant? A reprobate? A 'tyrant' of the 'pen'?
You might change your attitude shortly; or, may be not.
If conservatives disrespect the content and the message through allowance of the performance being the thing, I and many others will ask you who is it being done for? Clearly, not to make life better for all the citizenry that has to exist in this country everyday right along beside conservatives. You can't "do away" with liberals: We're here, we're queer,' and we help to make life better in this country right along beside conservatives every damn day.
As for communist tactics, that is untrue. Stop labeling people and things you can't accept as communist. Blacks, homosexuals, liberals, abortion, anything you can dredge up in your spirit as detestable is a communist ploy to change you. Well, no, you simply need to get on with your life and your program of living a conservative life in America and let liberals who are here everyday with you do the same. Communists label be damned.
Why would I change l keep my attitude? I am quite happy the way I am and my opinions are correct. You hopefully will change your attitude some day soon. I doubt yo will but I can hope.
Your opinions are not correct, when you conclude that you can just dislike your fellow citizens and take it upon yourselves, plural, to make painful and miserable the lives of others who have every right and privilege to prosper and enjoy our country as conservatives. The answer is in compromise! Decide to live peacefully with others instead of reaching into the liberal world and raising unholy "h" for its own sake! Precisely what DeSantis is doing by the way.
Only a fool and evil person would call or imply liberal parents are unfit to raise good, wholesome children and care wholeheartedly for their 'babies.' The gall of that man to blatantly play raw politics this way: exploiting a lie, and with conservative support!
But you think it is ok to disrespect the content and the message of conservatives though do you. It is being done for you and [removed] in hopes that by showing you the errors of your ways you may change and come to true right side
Your comment is garbled. And you may want to remove and forget the word, "ilk" because it will not serve you well on this platform.
But it is ok for you to dislike conservative citizens and make their lives miserable. Does the word hypocrite mean any thing to you.
BTW I have the right to dislike anyone I damn well please. I don't have to accept mentally ill people as "normal.
The liberal definition of compromise is for to have conservatives give up everything they hold dear and want and become liberals and for liberal to get everything their little hearts desire. No thank you. I'd rather fight than switch.
BESIDES you, who in the hell is yakking about communists?
Is THAT really what you wish to talk about--something no one else is even mentioning?
Talk about a major deflection...............
tsk, tsk.
Do better.
The liberal definition of compromise is for right wingers to stop lying so much.
Fixed
Please show where I have ever claimed that or where DeSantis has said that. Un biased sources please
I am conservative show me where I have lied. Be explicit, accurate and in context.
Who am I kidding. That will never happen.
Well, there you go. Now I am going to ask you calmly: Who are you calling "mentally ill"?
Yes, the minute percentage of small children who are transgender are vulnerable and at serious risk of harming themselves but what you propose will result in making it a whole lot harder for them to receive appropriate help!
Most if not all of those children especially the ones that Florida and other states are protecting (those from kindergarten to fourth grade);can barely decide what they want for lunch much less decide to make lifelong changes to there bodies. And study show that there are plenty post"treatment" people are still depressed and inclined to hurt themselves or commit suicide. The are also those that regret the changes they got and look to have as many of the procedures reversed.
If an adult wants to mutilate themselves itlkllike that well can't stop them but to do it to children is child abuse.
Desantis implies that school professionals do not have the best interest of their 'charges' in mind in the classroom, so he 'big-foots' and signs into law constraints on teachers' (professionals') abilities to think through and help parents be informed about education and disciplinary matters at school and potential remedies. Commonsense dictates you have the support for your attitude with conservative teaching professionals and parent groups like, "Moms for Liberty," so don't try to be coy. It's liberal parents conservatives are confronting as not wanting the best for their child/ren.
So if the teacher of a kindergarten class decides that it would be "in the best interest" of her/his class that your child or grand child was a member to see the cartoon movie "Fritz the Cat", you would be perfectly fine with that.
Let's get one thing clear. We're not talking about just some child or a general grouping or collection of children. And you are likely not qualified to speak expertly or prescribe for the narrow group you are addressing—its the responsibility of on-site professionals and medical specialists.
So let's be clear, the conservative position is rank politics with high-sounding, fear-mongering, talking points repeated over and over.
BTW, you asked me @6.1.13 :
Please show where I have ever claimed that or where DeSantis has said that. Unbiased sources please
Well arkpdx, here you are evidentially claiming what liberal parents are doing is unfit and labeling it pure child abuse.
Don't know what that cartoon is or about. Got a clip that I can 'sample'?
Show me where in the bill he "implies" that?
Where in the bill does it constrain teachers from talking with parents?
It DOES NOT say it anywhere.
Lots of misinformation and outright lies have been bandied about regarding Florida law.
The whole "Don't Say Gay" charade is based wholly on lies.
Some liberals always want to gripe about some new law without reading it first. MSNBC or CNN tells them to be outraged because of some perceived slight and tells them the law says something other than what it actually does say.
Pretty sad, isn't it?
This is a partially display of the article, draw your own conclusions as to what demands DeSantis is targeting and presenting teachers with not doing under legal duress. When you do draw conclusions based on the article, be sure to garner the right conclusions, please. Thanks, Goose'!
Where does it say that I have to like anybody much less everybody?
You are making the claims about DeSantis not me. Show me where he has "implied" anything about teachers interest in students in the Bill, show where the teachers are constrained. If you can't then admit it, rather than deflect with "draw your own conclusions".
You've made that rather clear that we can all just be 'ugly' to each other, but even ferocious beasts on the Serengeti don't do that with their limited intelligence. And we are their 'stewards.' We can do so much better!
Well here. I'll be nice to you and give you a choice. Do you want to be the pot or the kettle.
Well I made the first move and gave you first choice. Your turn.
Still can't answer any of the questions from comment six huh?
I can't make you believe anything goose'. I will just keep putting in out there and you can take it in or not. It's all the same to me. I tire of 'leaning in' to people who won't lean out.
Did you read David French's article? It is self-explanatory.
Read the comments from top to bottom. If you have already, perhaps do it again. Glean, connect, and surmise a message and an answer from them!
I will not be distracted because you want to pigeon-hole me and others into a corner in hopes of obligating one or all of us into explaining diverse viewpoints from around the liberal world to you!
But you don't have.any problem doing that to me and other conservatives. Are you going to try and tell me to do as you say not as you do?
You are not pigeon-holed by me. I just won't be intimidated by bad faith whataboutisms. You can't always steer the discussion where, and only down lanes, you wish to travel. It's okay to a point, but then we all have something to get off our chests too!
Again but you have no issue pigeon holding me. You are not going to steer the discussion at all times and when you can't or you can't refute the evidence you claim that you are an injured party and start whining. I know you want to be in control at all times and are unhappy when you not.
Whatever. Let's move our whiny, injured "parties" along now.
How much liberal content can you find on Fox or Breitbart or any other right wing media company? These useless moron conservatives whine and moan about their wild conspiracy theories aren't being given more air time by the MSM but shrug their shoulders that anything positive about liberals is never allowed on their right wing conservative media machine. They have no problems quashing stories that might put Democrats in a good light, but endlessly whine when more liberal media outlets ignore their tired claims of victimhood. Right wing conservative hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.
Yes. They are always the first to demand accountability when a liberal or progressive celebrity or elected Democrat is caught up in any scandal, look what happened to Senator Franken or the Dixie Chicks. Of course, when it comes to accusations against conservative celebrities or elected Republicans they circle their hypocritical wagons and defend accused rapists and pedophiles claiming it all must be 'fake news'.
Moreover, liberal cable news anchors can't get conservative 'rock stars' to sit down for interviews or to accept invitations for on-air interactions, because it is "too-hard" for them to navigate the facts when the delusions, misinformation, disinformation, and alternative facts are whittled away. Now, liberal news producers simply have stopped asking or announce on-air invitation not accepted.
Those are not social media sites but opinion (of the hosts) and news sites and are not social media like Facebook or Twitter are or were. And fox does have liberal contributor on air regularly. Juan Williams comes to mind.
How many conservatives are on MSNBC or CNN? (Don't use Joe Scarborough he is only pretends to be conservative)
While you are at it tell me how many liberals were banned from Facebook or Twitter in the past and who they are.
And most liberal will not accept on air interviews on FOX. That FOX still can attract some liberals speaks volumes s to it's fairness.
That liberals can't beg and plead with conservatives 'heavy hitters' to do the same (even up to Trump) speaks greater volumes too. This ain't a whataboutism with me. Conservatives can't or won't take the heat, because it may explode their 'silos.' Worse, some group of conservatives might see the interviews and deprogram themselves. Conservatives, got to love that they are always playing the long game (hook or crook).
Or, in reality, many just can't stomach the thought of some hit-piece of an interview, so just easier to skip it than give any credibility to the Democratic Party shills.
What sane liberal would go on Faux 'news'?
That IS funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ [ ] [ Deleted] ]
Are you saying Juan Williams is not San? I might agree with you there since he is a liberal and has swallowed the liberal BS hook line and sinker.
Who is Juan Williams?
That evoked an audible laugh. If you actually believe FOX is "fair and balanced" then I can only feel sorry for you.
Also...
"Twitter has purged left-wing accounts with no explanation"
"Claim of anti-conservative bias by social media firms is baseless, report finds"
Well if you ever watched Fox, it is obvious you have never watch it, you would know. You know GOOGLE is available 24/7/365 for you questions.
They care and away more fair and balanced the either MSNBC or CNN ever hoped to be.
"sane liberal" oxymoron!
Friend Tessylo, Transportation secretary Buttigieg and Senator Bernie Sanders are at least two liberals that go on Fox News when invited. I'm sure there are more, but I would have to hang out more often and longer to see them there.
Juan Williams is a liberal soul that has worked that Fox News channel long enough for a retirement package. He is like Alan Colmes (deceased.) but with the anchor chair. Good liberal man. Hardworking. Makes an impact, but as you anticipate he is overwhelmed by conservatives commenters on every multi-platform he sits on or they basically attack, chew, and recycle him. He gives them what for to the best of his ability though. Been around since the 1990 over there!
Shall we start with Nicole Wallace who has a daily 2 hour show?
These conservatives no longer value Nicole Wallace or Mike Wallace for that matter or Shephard Smith or Michael Steele, or . . . .
In addition to Nicole Wallace, conservative commentators who are regularly on MSNBC include:
- Former RNC Chairman and former Republican Lt. Governor of Maryland Michael Steele
- Long time Republican operative Steve Schmidt
- Long time conservative commentator Charlie Sykes
- Former G.W. Bush speechwriter David Frum
- Former Republican Congressman David Jolly
- Former Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo
This is just a partial list as there are many more.
Obviously, the person who asked how many conservatives are on MSNBC never watches it, or they would know.
For CNN, Wikipedia has a list of their personnel, past and current, which the person inquiring can easily look up.
Interestingly, unlike many of the creeps on the fake, biased reactionary propaganda outlet, Fox so-called News, none of the commentators on MSNBC are Putin supporters.
May be of no value to you CB but true none the less
Would not know about any of that since I would rather stick needles in my eyes than watch MSNBC.
Watching the reactionary Fox/Putin propaganda channel is the equivalent of sticking needles in your brain.
So are you going to answer my question or duck them as usual.
Well, what's your answer?
Break time. Be back shortly. Friend Trout Giggles, it's all yours if you want. Just be yourself!
[Deleted]