© Provided by Washington Examiner

1. Jonathan Turley Website
2. Jonathan Turley Res Ipsa Loquitur
3. Prof. Jonathan Turley Twitter
4. Dr Steve Turley
5. Jonathan Turly Twitter
6. Jonathan Turley Res Ipsa

Turley wrote on Twitter of Obama’s statement, 'There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free' was a 'curious statement.

Jonathan Turley went after Oliver Darcy for the CNN media reporter's suggestion that Twitter should further warn users about the president's tweets.

Constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley warned that Twitter’s decision to level fact checks or altogether hide President Trump’s tweets threatened the concept of free expression in America. “Twitter is now making the case for government action to monitor and control social media,” Turley wrote in a blog post published Friday. — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 25, 2021 My main concern is still Twitter's expanding censorship of material deemed misleading. The use of community input will be part of this broader effort to identify material deemed misinformation and remove it. — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 25, 2021. Turley, who said he does not support the GOP’s challenge of the election results, asked “why on Earth” someone would oppose reviewing why there were so many issues with the 2020 election. “It is the very same law used in the same way as Democrats in past elections,” Turley said of the GOP’s challenge.

The George Washington University law professor and political commentator posted on his blog Monday that Darcy had 'ratcheted up his call for de-platforming opposing views.' At question was a passage Darcy wrote in the outlet's media newsletter.

'Nearly every tweet from the president at this point is labeled for misinfo. Which had me thinking,” Darcy wrote, according to Fox News. 'Why doesn't Twitter just take the step of labeling his entire account as a known source of election disinfo? And why stop there? Why not label accounts that repeatedly spread claims the platform has to fact-check?'

'Like many anti-free speech advocates, Darcy simply labels those with opposing views as spreading 'disinformation' and demands that they be labeled or barred from social media,' Turley wrote. Referring to the newsletter, the lawyer added, 'Darcy calls for every tweet by Trump to be labeled as disinformation while asking 'and why stop there?' Precisely. Once you cross the Rubicon of speech regulation, there is little reason or inclination to stop.'

Jonathan Turley Website

'So put me down as preferring free speech without the helpful guards and content modification,' he said. 'Instead, I hold a novel idea that people can reach their own conclusions on such is disinformation just as Darcy does.'

Tweets from President Trump about election fraud have repeatedly been labeled by Twitter as disputed. Critics of the platform say that this amounts to censorship.

The Washington Examiner reached out to Darcy for comment on the matter but did not immediately hear back.

Tags:News, CNN, Twitter, Donald Trump twitter, Donald Trump, Censorship

Original Author:Haley Victory Smith

Original Location:Jonathan Turley goes after Oliver Darcy

While looking up the legal definition of inciting a riot, I came across a post by law professor Jonathan Turley. While no fan of Trump, he wrote that the President’s speech on January 6th do not rise to the legal standard for inciting a riot (Brandenberg v. Ohio from 1969 is the precedent or standard in this type of case):

When I testified in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on a clear crime but that Congress historically has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses. In this current controversy, any such comparison would quickly dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite widespread, justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” […]

There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent; the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters present were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests we have witnessed over the last four years, including Trump’s 2017 inauguration, the criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol police knew of the planned march but declined an offer of National Guard personnel because they did not view violence as likely.

Thus, Congress is about to seek the impeachment of a president for a speech that is protected under the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president who can be blamed for the violent acts of others after the use of reckless or inflammatory language.

Jonathan Turley Res Ipsa Loquitur

Turley goes on to note, as I have written, that there’s been no lack of overheated rhetoric from the other side of the aisle … but somehow that’s not inciting a riot. “They can all legitimately argue that their rhetoric was not meant to be a call for violence, but this is a standard fraught with subjectivity.”

It’s a crime when YOU do it, not when WE do it. Is this line of argument from the I’m Rubber and You’re Glue School of Law?

In another post, on retired Senator Ron Paul being banned from Facebook, Turley wrote about the explosion of rage and vitriol:

Prof. Jonathan Turley Twitter

Even before the riot, Democrats were calling for blacklists and retaliation against anyone deemed to be “complicit” with the Trump Administration. We have been discussing the rising threats against Trump supporters, lawyers, and officials in recent weeks from Democratic members are calling for blacklists to the Lincoln Project leading a a national effort to harass and abuse any lawyers representing the Republican party or President Trump. Others are calling for banning those “complicit” from college campuses while still others are demanding a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to “hold Trump and his enablers accountable for the crimes they have committed.” Daily Beast editor-at-large Rick Wilson has added his own call for “humiliation,” “incarceration” and even ritualistic suicides for Trump supporters in an unhinged, vulgar column.

Dr Steve Turley

After the riots, the big tech companies moved to ban and block sites and individuals, including Parler which is the primary alternative to Twitter. Also, a top Forbes editor Randall Lane warned any company that they will be investigated if they hire any former Trump officials.

Jonathan Turly Twitter

The riots are being used as a license to rollback on free speech and retaliate against conservatives. In the meantime, the silence of academics and many in the media is deafening. Many of those who have spoken for years about the dark period of McCarthyism and blacklisting are either supporting this censorship or remaining silent in the face of it. Now that conservatives are the targets, speech controls and blacklists appear understandable or even commendable.

Jonathan Turley Res Ipsa

The move against Paul, a long champion of free speech, shows how raw and comprehensive this crackdown has become. It shows how the threat to free speech has changed. It is like having a state media without state control. These companies are moving in unison but not necessarily with direct collusion. The riot was immediately taken as a green light to move against a huge variety of sites and individuals. As we have seen in Europe, such censorship becomes an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech control. Even Germany’s Angela Merkel (who has a long history of anti-free speech actions) has criticized Twitter’s actions as inimical to free speech. Yet, most law professors and media figures in the United States remain silent.

We are in dangerous times, people. And the danger is not coming from Trump.