Speech is free. It’s transmission isn’t.

If one lives in the USA, then one has the right to speak one’s mind without the government punishing one for doing so. That right is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What isn’t enshrined in the First Amendment is a right to have someone else transmit one’s speech to the general public. This particular fact seems to be lost to certain people, as a headline from The Hill website reveals.

That story by The Hill begins by saying, “Twitter’s verification program put the company at the center of another political headache this week, with the social media giant stuck between liberals who demand stricter rules about hate speech and misinformation and conservatives who fear the site will target them for their political views.”

The story goes on to say, “Gab — a Twitter rival with laxer content rules that British provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and other fringe right figures have taken to after being banned from Twitter — agreed with calls from some right-wing figures for Twitter to be regulated as a utility.”

Gab is wrong. Twitter isn’t a utility, and it isn’t a government entity. It is a business that provides people with a convenience. To be precise, Twitter works by transmitting written speech that is created by parties outside of Twitter. Someone has to pay for that speech to be transmitted, and that someone is usually the businesses that advertise on Twitter.

Shouldn’t the parties that pay to transmit the speech have a say in what speech is transmitted?

Answer: Yes, absolutely. That is how the free market works.

The business executives who run Twitter have to be sensitive to the desires of Twitter’s advertisers, and if those advertisers don’t want certain speech to be transmitted or verified, then the executives will prevent that speech from being transmitted or verified. That is one of the features of capitalism.

Apparently, certain people will throw a temper tantrum when capitalism and the free market work against them. For example, take a look at this tweet from one disgruntled member of the political Right:

Laura Loomer’s tweet is causing my meter to peg to the far right.

Twitter isn’t preventing people on the political Right from spending their own money to provide themselves with a way to transmit their political speech to the public.

In this case, Twitter’s Right-wing critics are so far out in space that NASA can’t get a radar fix on them.

(Featured Image is in the public domain. Via Wikimedia Commons.)

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners Week of November 17, 2017
Tags:
  • Retired military

    Meanwhile Hillary said that her husband never used Twitter when he was president.
    She didn’t mention that Twitter wasn’t even around until 5 years after her husband was no longer President.

  • Retired military

    Oh and I forgot. Our local liberal posted another thread on Wizbang.

    Twitter has no problems transmitting the speech of certain hate groups and certain racists groups but does have a problem with conservative speech. No wonder they are considered liberal and no wonder David supports them.

    • jim_m

      Hate groups that hate America, just like every fucking liberal hates America. It’s not jsut the media that are the enemies of the people it is the entire institutional left.

    • Scalia

      Yep. Now it’s John Conyers.

  • Retired military

    Twitter allows the call for Trump to be assassinated to remain up for 3 months. But hey, the transmission of it is being paid so everything is okay with David.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/twitter-allowed-trump-assassination-threat-blue-checkmark-journo-crissy-milazzo-stay-three-months/

    In the world of Imagine lets imagine if this were a threat to kill Obama. How long do you think it would stay up on Twitter?

  • Retired military

    Maureen Dowd “”I think until we take off our jersey and say some things are not about our Jersey. Some things are not about the tribe that we’re in,” he pontificated. “We saw this in ’91, then the Republicans gave up their values in order to get Justice Thomas on the court.”
    “They basically called Anita Hill a nut and a liar in order to get Justice Thomas on the court. They empowered Bill Clinton,” he continued to proclaim, devoid of any facts or reason. “But in order to get those things, they decided the ends justify the means. They decided that a tainted person was better to get what they wanted.””

    So let me get this straight. Republicans defending Clarence Thomas in ummm 1991 empowered Bill Clinton in the rape of Juanita Brodering in ummm 1978.

    Maybe David can use Twitter to tell Dowd that his timeline needs a little work.

  • Retired military

    Charlie Rose accused by more women then Moore.

    #where’s.David

    • Paul Hooson

      This is indeed a depressing story. For many years there was little overnight TV and I used to repair many TVs in my shop, where Charlie Rose was one of the only late night programs on. Like Walter Cronkite, he seemed a legend in the news industry with an intelligent and hard working style, yet put the viewer or interviewee at ease.

      • jim_m

        And like Cronkite, his rep is largely BS. Cronkite was always a partisan hack, deliberately shaping the news to fit a left wing agenda. The “fairness doctrine” provided window dressing for him, but were he to be in the news today he would give Rather a run for his money in dishonesty.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Just to add to jim.m’s comment, Charlie Rose was apparently an ill-tempered jerk [WaPo, via Powerline]: Five of the women spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of Rose’s stature in the industry, his power over their careers or what they described as his volatile temper.

      • Jwb10001

        These people are putting on a show Paul, they are seldom who they seem.

    • Hank_M

      No wonder these people were all downplaying Bill Clintons sexual assaults.
      They were doing the same damn thing.

  • Jwb10001

    Should bakers be allowed to refuse to participate in a gay wedding? Should African American service providers be allowed to refuse service to the KKK? Should Jewish business people be allowed to refuse Nazi customers? I’m under the impression people like David insist if you provide goods or services you can’t discriminate? Which is it?

    • jim_m

      It’s OK when the left discriminates against someone, because those people deserve it.

    • Paul Hooson

      I’m Jewish, and I never minded offering my retail services to everyone in the public, although neoNazis and a few others make me cringe a little. But, I even brought a hungry neoNazi home for dinner more than once. A couple of Arabs pulled a wanker deal one time, where we had an exchange of words that stopped just short of a fist fight, but I have other friends who are Palestinian and Egyptian I just love as friends. In short, when in public business, you treat the public with equal respect, dignity and service, and leave your differences at the door. There’s a little bit of God in each of us. We should never forget that fact…

      • Jwb10001

        So does that mean you reject Twitters campaign against conservative tweets or not, it’s never really clear with you.

        • Paul Hooson

          I don’t think Twitter has any legal or moral grounds to censor opinions they may not agree with.

      • jim_m

        Would you have catered a neo nazi event? A fund raiser for Hamas?

        • Paul Hooson

          Good question. No, I would not volunteer or seek their business, But, in a public business, no one can refuse service to someone legally.

          • Vagabond661

            “No shirt. No shoes. No service.”

            “No smoking”

            “No Guns”

            I think you can. You just have been conditioned to believe you can’t.

      • Scalia

        Paul, I’d like to know your answer to Jim’s question. Would you cater a fund raiser for Hamas?

        • Paul Hooson

          No. Hamas can find their own hummus and pita bread. They are hateful and nothing like so many millions of decent and moderate Muslims. – However, if any customer walks through the door in a public business, there is no legal grounds to refuse service.

          • Scalia

            Yes, there is legal ground. It’s called the Constitution. Congress can make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. Via the doctrine of incorporation, that applies to the states. For now, I’ll concede incorporation arguendo.

            A constitutional right trumps any federal law. A law which compels a store owner to engage in a practice which violates h/er clearly stated religious convictions is invalid.

            I realize that current SCOTUS/appellet court precedent states otherwise, but I stridently disagree with that.

  • jim_m

    David, Twitter is not a utility as we have traditionally looked at them. However, if you look at the way that Google, Facebook and Twitter have created effective monopolies on the internet, these are Trusts that need to be regulated as illegal trusts and either broken up or regulated to ensure that they operate in the public interest.

    Pretending otherwise only shows waht an ass you are.

    • Hemmein

      LOL. Facebook, Google +,Bebo and MySpace are in direct competition with each other, and you claim a monopoly and call for state controls.

      • jim_m

        No you imbecile. I called them trusts, that is different than a monopoly. GO look it up and stop being a moron. Plus, I referred to Google and Facebook. They do not compete directly as Google is a search engine and FB is a social media platform. Google+ has a tiny footprint in the latter market. Your mentioning of Bebo and Mysace is laughable in its ignorance.

        Do you honestly thin that Standard Oil was the only oil company in the world when it was split up? That AT&T was the only phone company? Are you really so stupid as to think that in order for the laws to apply that such a state, which has never occurred, must be the case? Stop abusing pixels with your ignorance.

  • pennywit

    1) Learn the difference between “its” and “it’s.”

    2) While Twitter is a private company with its own free-speech rights (including the right to control its own platform), Twitter’s position as a major social network nevertheless gives it the ability to set (and enforce) societal norms regarding free speech. Additionally, Twitter demonstrates through its actions whether it is committed to freedom of speech.

    3) When a critic chastises Twitter for falling short of the ideal of free speech, that critic is himself exercising his speech rights.

    • Retired military

      Thou shall not question the liberal agenda or the actions of the liberal media.
      The power of liberalism compels you
      The power of liberalism compels you.

      🙂

      • pennywit

        I will compel you with the power of country music!!!!

    • Jwb10001

      But if the NFL wants it’s players to stand that’s a no go? If a Christian baker doesn’t want to participate in a gay wedding that’s also not allowed. If a Church doesn’t want to participate in providing contraceptives and pay for abortions that also is not allowed? If a liberal hotel wants to ban Trump supporters we’re ok with that? If the Hispanic congressional caucus wants to ban a Hispanic congressman because he’s a republican that’s cool. I mean I just don’t get it, unless it’s just liberals are exempt from their own rules.

      • pennywit

        JWB — all of these. Are you talking about laws or cultural norms?

      • Walter_Cronanty

        JWB – To be consistent, you must agree that Twitter has its rights as a private company.
        The NFL, at least in its written procedures [not sure re: its Collective Bargaining Agreement with the players’ union], states that players should stand for the anthem. The owners are ball-less billionaires who live in a largely left-wing, elite bubble. Thus, they don’t enforce their own rules when “social justice” rears its ugly head.
        The Christian baker should not be compelled by the government to participate in what he/she believes is a mockery of her/his sacred, religious rite.
        The church should not be compelled by the government to provide contraceptives or abortions.
        I’m simply not up-to-date on public accommodations’ law to speak as to the legality of denying service on the basis of political opinion, and I’m unaware of any hotel planning to do so [the earlier story reported on was of a proposed hotel that would openly support left-wing causes in its public spaces].
        If the Hispanic congressional caucus wants to ban Republicans, that’s OK. Freedom of Association, and all that. Plus, it openly demonstrates the hypocrisy of the organization.
        Thus, let Twitter be openly biased in its censorship. Let everybody know where it stands – and let the Koch brothers build a better social network that does not censor based on political beliefs.

        • pennywit

          I’m simply not up-to-date on public accommodations’ law to speak as to the legality of denying service on the basis of political opinion, and I’m unaware of any hotel planning to do so [the earlier story reported on was of a proposed hotel that would openly support left-wing causes in its public spaces].

          I’ve followed this issue on the Volokh Conspiracy for a while. It’s a mixed bag. There are no federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on political opinion, but some states do prohibit that sort of discrimination.

          • jim_m

            It would be interesting to see them sued in one of those states.

          • Retired military

            So Pennywit

            Just curious and really not meant as a gotcha (even though it could be seen as that). I will not provide any remarks back to your answers and ask that others not either.

            A. Should a baker be made to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding even though the baker feels it violates their religious beliefs to do so.

            B. If the answer to A is yes then should a Muslim baker be made to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding?

            C. If the answer to A is yes then should an African American baker be forced to bake a wedding cake for someone in the KKK and that cake is in for them of a black man in chains?

            D. If the answer to A is yes then should a Jewish baker baker be forced to bake a wedding cake for a Nazi in the form of a swatstika ?

          • pennywit

            Do you mean by force of law or by force of social custom?

          • Retired military

            Well the only way that they would be forced to bake the cake would be by force of law. Social custom cant force anyone to do anything. Someone either chooses to comply with the custom or not.

          • pennywit

            They could also be forced by way of economic boycott or social shaming. A person who boycotts or social shames a business has a right to do it, but I am perfectly willing to say whether I think such a thing is right.

          • Retired military

            Even with economic boycott and social shaming both the person is still doing this with no lawful penalties against them. The govt would have no power to enforce.

          • pennywit

            In terms of social custom … I try to have a sense of proportion. I don’t see “I didn’t get a wedding cake because of discrimination!” as something worth fighting about. It’s a CAKE, for crying out loud!! And there are plenty of other bakers available. In fact, if a baker (or other wedding vendor) were to simply say “I’m sorry, I have very strong religious feelings on gay marriage. I don’t think I can help you But here are a couple phone numbers for bakers who would be happy to work with you!” then I think that ought to be an acceptable social compromise.
            People ought to be polite, y’know?
            I also don’t think you do much good by leading gigantic crusades against bakers and other wedding vendors over this issue, especially when the broader public consensus is now firmly in favor of gay rights.

          • pennywit

            In terms of law (not social custom), I can answer what I think should happen. Let me preface this by saying I think the cake wars are pretty stupid. I know what gay couples are trying to do — social justice, yadda, yadda, yadda. But “I can’t get my wedding cake!” doesn’t exactly rank up there with “I can’t sit in the front of the bus because of my race” or “I couldn’t get hired because of my sexual orientation” in the annals of social injustices.

            Beyond that, let me lay out a couple of my core principles on public accommodations.

            In terms of a customer, I am more sympathetic to a customer who faces discrimination based on some intrinsic, nearly unchangeable factor — gender, race, a physical handicap, veteran’s status, or sexual orientation, for example. I include religion here. I am less sympathetic to a person who claims discrimination based on some unchangeable factor such as “I was carrying a bottle of wine” or “I had my pet dog with me” or “I was wearing a Dallas Cowboys jersey.”

            From the other end, I have no patience for businesses that discriminate based on the typical factors (race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc.) But I also think there’s a place — a very valid place — for discrimination based on viewpoint. I also believe that when the business involves some form of expressive activity, we start to see a business owner’s free-speech rights take primacy.

            Also on the vendor’s side, I am very wary of granting public accommodations a blanket license to evade discrimination law (or other laws) by way of a religious exemption. Unless such a thing is cabined very carefully, it could create an untenable situation. Justice Scalia said as much in Employment Div. v. Smith.

            With that said, to your specific questions:

            A. Should a baker be made to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding even though the baker feels it violates their religious beliefs to do so.

            I would say yes. I don’t think a public accommodation ought to be able to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation. But I think there’s wiggle room here. Is the couple ordering fifty yards of sheetcake? Or has the couple ordered an erotic cake in the shape of two men intertwined?

            B. If the answer to A is yes then should a Muslim baker be made to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding?

            Again, yes. Public accommodation. See above

            C. If the answer to A is yes then should an African American baker be forced to bake a wedding cake for someone in the KKK and that cake is in for them of a black man in chains?

            No. Two distinguishing factors here. First, you’ve added an expressive element, which implies compelled speech, rather than a mere commercial transaction. Second, you’re asking if a person should be able to discriminate based on political affiliation (KKK) rather than on the basis of race (white).

            If the answer to A is yes then should a Jewish baker baker be forced to bake a wedding cake for a Nazi in the form of a swatstika ?

            Again, no. You’re implicating expressive elements and political affiliation rather than race.

          • Retired military

            Man I didn’t expect a 10 paragraph legalese answer LOL.
            Thanks for the answers though. As stated above I wont comment on how I feel about the answers and ask others don’t either.

          • pennywit

            Be careful what you wish for.

          • Scalia

            I would say yes. I don’t think a public accommodation ought to be able to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation.

            But the proprietors in question did not prohibit patrons from purchasing cakes on the basis of sexual orientation. They were willing to sell cakes, flowers, etc., but were unwilling to participate in any expressly gay ceremony.

            Objections have been lodged about photographers who provide event services. If a photographer shoots a normal wedding, shouldn’t s/he be compelled under public accommodation to shoot a perverted one? The answer is no if said photographer has a religious objection, whether it’s photographing people drinking booze or providing a portfolio for a nudist wedding. If a Christian believes that shooting a nudist portfolio contradicts h/er faith, s/he shouldn’t be punished for living her faith. Religious rights don’t end at the office door (I know you’re not arguing that).

            Certain accommodations obligate endorsement in the minds of millions of believers. They sincerely believe they are offending God by participating in certain acts. There’s not the slightest doubt in my mind that if the Founding Fathers were told that the First Amendment did not protect store owners against the compulsion to sell gay wedding cakes, they’d question the sanity of that person.

          • pennywit

            A question for you. Clearly you favor some form of religious-based exemption from generally applicable laws. Where do you draw the lines on what kinds of laws ought to receive this automatic exemption? And what factors do you weigh in drawing those lines?

          • Scalia

            My underlying philosophy is an encapsulation of Goldwater:

            Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation at the expense of liberty is no virtue.

            A citizen may do with h/er property as s/he pleases, including h/er business. In that regard, I am much more libertarian than the run-of-the-mill GOP conservative.

            As you know, we passionately believe in the right to keep and bear arms, yet we recognize a private proprietorship right to forbid me from carrying a weapon on its premises. If I see a sign which says, “No Firearms,” I shop elsewhere. It is not within the scope of federal authority to force a business owner to allow firearms on h/er property.

            With respect to religion, there is no evidence that the Founders’ understanding of religious liberty included right to engage in human sacrifice or to ignore laws relating to theft, property destruction, etc. So, I would not consider religious exemptions to include those things.

            I could type a lot, LOT more, but I’d rather limit my replies to your specific arguments or objections.

          • pennywit

            PS. The Skins and the Giants are both in the NFC East cellar, so nobody wants to go to this evening’s game. Just for fun, I got some club-level seats for $40 apiece. I’m going to enjoy this evening’s game, and I’m going to enjoy it in style!

          • Scalia

            The Skins should easily defeat the Giants. I hope you have a good time. I’m not very optimistic about today’s contest with the Vikings.

          • pennywit

            The Skins won. But damn, that was a pathetic game.

          • Scalia

            I didn’t figure it would be a classic, but since you forked over the money to be there, it’s always better if your team wins.

            I thought the Lions would lose by a greater margin. What makes it extra frustrating is they had real chances to win. Dropped passes and overthrown receivers who were wide open should not occur in a game of this magnitude. The offsides on the blocked kick at the end is so typical of the myriad ways I’ve seen them lose over the decades.

          • Scalia

            Sorry, RM. I will not pledge to avoid commenting on pennywit’s answers. Much of the posts here are off-topic, but too much water has passed under the bridge to stop it now.

          • Retired military

            C’est la vie.
            I asked the questions because I was personally curious. I didn’t want him to think I was trying to set him up.

        • pennywit

          I’d like to see JWB address the cultural/legal bifurcation. I mean, it is possible to simultaneously believe that a baker should not discriminate against gay couples and the government does not have the right to compel the baker not to discriminate.

          (And it’s also possible to hold the opinion that the First Amendment does not give the baker the right to discriminate, yet RFRA prohibits the government from outlawing it).

          • Walter_Cronanty

            As I understand it, RFRA only applies to the federal government – not state governments, where most of the baker/florist cases are coming from.

          • pennywit

            However, a number of state governments (don’t remember the exact count) have so-called mini-RFRAs that effectively mirror the federal RFRA..

            The Masterpiece case, currently on appeal before SCOTUS, comes from Colorado, which has no RFRA. Because the Supreme Court would defer to state interpretations of Colorado’s religious-freedom laws (whatever they may be), I think at least a couple justices are sympathetic to the religious-freedom argument for Masterpiece Bakery. Personally, I find the free-speech argument more compelling and more desirable.

          • Jwb10001

            I don’t have an opinion on the bifurcation issue. My complaint is the inconsistent application of either/both. If the news media chases down a pizza shop and manages to get them to say they would rather not cater a gay wedding all hell breaks loose. The media whips up the SJWs who then picket the business etc in an attempt to shut them down. I get that’s social pressure not legal action. On the other hand we’ve seen people taken to court and we have Ca trying to enact all sorts of speech restrictions with force of law behind them. Oddly all those are to sooth the tender feelings of our ultra liberal SJWs and other victim classes. So all I’m saying is that the institutions that feed these witch hunts and drive these issues into liberal state legislatures all seem to be pushing the lefts point of view. This issue with Tweeter doesn’t seem to bother them since it’s their political enemies being targeted. We can’t get hardly any TV time for Lois Lerner and her band of merry IRS bad guys, but we can sure beat the crap out of a photographer that doesn’t want to take pictures of men kissing each other at their weddings. Heaven forbid you were a conservative on a college campus these days, if you express an opinion you’re in trouble. On the other hand if you’re a leftist you can all but burn the place down and still pretty much get a pass. I just wish the rules were first off clear and secondly applied evenly.

        • Jwb10001

          Walter I’ve no complaint about these specifics my complaint is that the rules are not applied evenly. If Twitter can do what ever it pleases to whom ever it please so should everyone else. So I don’t argue your point I only argue the application of the rules. If I must live by the left’s rules they must as well. The proposed hotel in DC is a good example, I don’t care if they refuse to accommodate Trump supporters, I don’t want to hear a single peep when that shoes on the other foot.

          Edit: additionally what do you suppose would happen if the Koch’s build a social network that mistreats liberals?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I agree with your basic proposition. I only think that mocking progressives’ hypocrisy is more fun and important than getting mad at their hypocrisy.

            Let everyone know how intellectually dishonest the left is. Good fodder for showing them as the fools they are.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      I’m afraid I must agree with pennywit [and David, may the good Lord have mercy on my soul] on this one. Indeed, Twitter was losing customers in the market of free speech prior to the election of our Tweeter in Chief, and is still losing customers in the US. The proper way to combat Twitter’s left-wing censorship is to build a better platform which provides less left-wing censorship.

      • pennywit

        You agree with me more often than you think

        • Walter_Cronanty

          No, you agree with me more often than you think.

          • pennywit

            No, you agree with me more often than you think.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You are an unprincipled, intellectually dishonest jerk for agreeing with me. Now stop it!

          • pennywit

            You agreed with me first!!

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Well now you’re just being childish.

          • You are less original than you think.

          • pennywit

            No, YOU are less original than you think!!

          • Though you do seem to have contrariness down pat.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Whereas you, Rodney, are never a contrarian. Just go along to get along Rodney.

  • Retired military

    New York Post reports:

    “Newly revealed pictures show Sen. Al Franken grabbing self-described feminist Arianna Huffingtonon her bottom and breasts.

    The never-before-published images, taken for a magazine in 2000 and obtained exclusively by The Post, include a number of frames showing the former “Saturday Night Live” star grabbing the media mogul’s buttocks as they pose back to back.

    An even more shocking snap shows the pair posing on a bed, with Franken cupping Huffington’s breast with one hand.

    “Franken was clowning around, but it really isn’t funny,” said a source from the shoot. “That’s his tactic, pretend like it’s all a big joke. Arianna was pushing his hands away. He was groping her. There was some fun attached to it, but she wasn’t enjoying it. She definitely told him to stop and pushed him away.””

    #Where’s.David

    • Jwb10001

      Hey I was just joking come on I mean they really were asking for it. I mean one of them was in playboy and goes on Hannity and just look at Arianna she’s clearly wantin’ it. Hey and do you know who I am?

    • Jwb10001

      Al Franken the great white grope

    • pennywit

      Cite the rest of the story:

      Huffington, however, denies anything was amiss — saying the touchy-feely photos were a nod to a TV sketch they did together in 1996.

      “The notion that there was anything inappropriate in this photo shoot is truly absurd,” she said in a statement to The Post.

      “Al and I did a comedic sketch for Bill Maher’s ‘Politically Incorrect’ called ‘Strange Bedfellows,’ in which the whole point, as the name makes clear, was that we were doing political commentary from bed. This shoot was looking back at the sketch, and we were obviously hamming it up for comedic effect.

      “I’ve been great friends with Al and his wife Franni for over 20 years and there has never been anything remotely inappropriate in our interactions.”

      If Huffington consent, and it wasn’t coerced in any way, then it’s not assault or harassment.

      • Retired military

        Aside from the fact that I didn’t see the link you posted before this moment.
        So other people at the shoot cant be offended by his behavior? What is another woman was there and saw it? Doesn’t that send a message to other people present that it is okay to do that at work? Tell it to other women who were harassed by Franken who can claim “Hey I grabbed her and she said it was okay so what is this other lady talking about”
        But hey this cant be a case of a liberal covering for a liberal now could it. I mean we hear now that hey Maybe Bill Clinton was wrong 20 years ago when we all know that he could have gotten a blowjob for a 10 year old at home plate during the 7th inning stretch of game 7 of the world series and the MSM would have lined up with their hands on the bible swearing that we didn’t see what we said we saw.
        And wait. Trump has a personal conversation with someone in confidence and they record it and play it for the nation half of whom are so upset by it they are fainting because Trump is talking about p*ssy. They are so upset about it they claim it is enough to disallow him from being POTUS. Yet Franken grabs breasts and ass and hey its okay. Nothing to see here. lets move along.

        • pennywit

          Quick note — you quoted the story. Figured you had the link.

          • Retired military

            Nope. Just saw that portion. I knew it was from NY Post but hadn’t seen original article.

  • Retired military

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/boom-witness-drops-bomb-proves-gloria-allred-accuser-nelson-lying-says-media-not-talk/

    Gloria Allred was lying and so was the national media.

    From the report:
    1.) The Olde Hickory House required employees to be at least 16. Beverly Nelson claims she was 15 when she started.

    2.) The restaurants dumpsters were on the side of the building and not in back as Nelson claimed.
    3.) A former employee says the restaurant NEVER closed at 11 PM as Nelson claimed and at midnight on most nights.

    4.) Customers at the counter were served by the bartender or cook and not by any waitress.

    5.) The witnesses claim they have shared this information with several news outlets but they have refused to report the truth!

    #Where’s.David?

    • jim_m

      Where’s David?

      Hiding from the truth lest it disturb his fragile concept of how the world works.

  • Retired military

    Now we have a separate confidential settlement to a woman accusing Conyers of sexual harassment

    #where’s.David

  • Wrong.

    …one has the right to speak one’s mind without the government punishing one for doing so.

    The Government may not exercise prior restraint of a citizen’s speech. If that speech incites riot or violence the Government may indeed prosecute it post facto.

    You really need to stick to writing about ignorance.

    • pennywit

      The Government may not exercise prior restraint of a citizen’s speech. If that speech incites riot or violence the Government may indeed prosecute it post facto.

      And there’s a rather high bar to do so.

      • As well there should be (a high bar to prosecution for incitement to riot or violence). Why didn’t YOU correct our non-responsive author on that matter of Law?

        • pennywit

          Because I prefer people to talk back. Besides, I’m not correcting you. I’m adding to your explanation.

          • jim_m

            That’s an outright lie. You do not prefer people who talk back, you only prefer those who do not challenge you on your arguments.

  • Retired military

    Ref Conyers

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/flashback-maxine-waters-womens-convention-john-conyers-impeccable-integrity-issues-video/

    “One affidavit from a former female employee states that she was tasked with flying in women for the congressman. “One of my duties while working for Rep. Conyers was to keep a list of women that I assumed he was having affairs with and call them at his request and, if necessary, have them flown in using Congressional resources,” said her affidavit. (A second staffer alleged in an interview that Conyers used taxpayer resources to fly women to him.)”

    So Conyers had affairs, sexually harrassed women, user govt money to fly his mistresses in to DC, and to pay hush money.

    #where’s.David?

  • Retired military

    Disney’s chief creative officer now has stepped down (temporarily) due to accusations.

    #Where’s.David?

    Personally I think in about 2 weeks it will come out that all the accusations against Moore are either unfounded or “can’t be proven” and that we should just all get along and put this sordid mess behind us. Too many of the GOPe and Dems (along with their media and donors) are getting caught up in it and they will quickly want nothing more than for it to go away.

    I also look for someone like Judicial Watch to sue to have the list of names in Congress for whom taxpayer money was used to settle accusations released. Doubtful Congress will release it but will fun to watch them stammering around saying “nothing to see here” 12 ways from Sunday.

  • Retired military

    From Newsweek (of all places)

    “Pennsylvania Congressman Bob Brady, who oversees the settlements paid by Congress for sexual discrimination complaints, is under FBI investigation for false statements, conspiracy and campaign fraud, documents showed Tuesday.

    Brady, a Democrat, is a ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, which gives him power over settlement payments with taxpayer dollars. The office also works to prevent sexual harassment in Congress.

    “There is probable cause to believe that Brady and his associates “were involved in the commission of several crimes, including conspiracy, false statements, producing false records, false campaign contribution reports, and violating limits on campaign contributions and expenditures,” the court papers say. “Brady’s email account is likely to contain evidence of these crimes.”
    #Where’s.David?

    • Scalia

      David is writing two more pieces on climate (really). I guess charges of sexual misconduct are only important when Republicans are involved.

      • jim_m

        What? Is he claiming that the confederacy is responsible for global warming?

  • Retired military

    Matthew Dowd
    @matthewjdowd

    Every leader (and each of us) is human and flawed and makes mistakes, but there is a difference between those who are flawed who work for the common good and those who are flawed who could care less about the common good. Huge difference.

    —-

    In other words it is okay for dems to sexually harass, rape, etc as long as their views agree with Dowd. But no republicans.

    Hitler killed 6 million jews but hey he made the trains run on time so what the heck is the matter.

    #Where’s,David?

  • jim_m

    David, Sites such as Twitter, Google, and FaceBook are reasonably construed as public accommodations. As such their ability to discriminate against people is severely limited. Or do you believe that a hotel should be able to deny you service for the same reasons that Twitter is denying people their services?

    • Retired military

      Jim
      You should know by now that David only dictates. He never answers except with more dictation.
      You, I and the rest of us are not worthy of his responses and should just be thankful that he deems us worthy enough to even see his diatribes.

    • Scalia

      Look for David to post another column which basically repeats what he says here while ignoring everything you say.

    • Hemmein

      Reasonably construed as public accommodations how? If a hotel finds my behaviour offensive, they can kick my ass to the curb. If I’m not meeting the dress code, I’m politely asked to change or bugger off.

      • jim_m

        You can say whatever you like in the hotel. No one has to listen to you. The same goes for twitter and FB and others. What they are claiming is that because their far left sensibilities are offended that therefore they have a right to silence people. This is not the case.

        Your comparison to dress codes and offensive behavior are misplaced as a hotel or restaurant cannot stop you from saying or wearing whatever you want in your own room. Your twitter page and your FB profile are not directly viewable from the outside. People have to know about them to find them out.

        These can be conceived of as public accommodations because they have attracted such a large market share and have successfully routed all competition.

  • Vagabond661

    So, Net Neutrality. What’s the verdict?

    • It’s a big government solution to a problem largely created by government and should die.

  • Retired military

    Guess CNN doesnt want to pay the transmission fee.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/23910/democrat-news-network-cnn-fails-report-these-24-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#

    DEMOCRAT NEWS NETWORK: CNN Fails To Report These 24 Democrat Sex Scandals

    #Where’s.David?

  • Retired military

    Well Pelosi has called for Conyers to resign. But David hasn’t.
    #Where’s.David?

  • Retired military

    Pelosi has stated she wants Conyers (African American ) to resign but not Franken (Caucasioin). Why is she only asking the black guy to resign?
    #Where’s.David?

  • Retired military

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/judge-moore-accuser-self-destructs-interview-admits-making-unsupported-claims/

    She then claimed that Moore “hates Jews. He hates blacks. He hates Muslims. He hates gays.”

    When challenged for specifics, Gary conceded that “I don’t know exactly what he said about Jews, but he doesn’t like Muslims. I know he doesn’t like Muslims. It is my personal feeling that he doesn’t like blacks.”

    When further petitioned to support her charges, especially her claim that Moore “hates blacks” and supports segregation, Gary further admitted, “I am not sure. That is my feeling

    ++++++++

    #Where’s.David?