Trump admin is clearly violating First Amendment here. How did this happen, you might wonder. I'm starting to think of this as right-wing wokeness. And how did it happen that Israel has apparently dictated much of US foreign policy for decades? AIPAC $, perhaps?
I've often enjoyed listening to Douglas Murray, but he seems to have gone off the rails for two reasons: A) His enthusiasm for war as a solution to complex disputes and B) His wish to control the free flow of information between other people based on his claim that we need to shut up and rely on "experts," by which I assume he means credentialed experts.
In this segment, Joe Rogan and Dave Smith dismantle Murray with simple questions. Watch him dart to a new topic whenever he is challenged.
I would agree with Saagar Enjeti's description:
And here's a glaring irony pointed out by Enjeti:
As Dave Smith points out, during the pandemic, the "experts" got almost everything wrong. Murray has no response. The COVID error would include many of the following:
Here's a bigger irony. If only "experts" should weigh in on complex and important topics of the day, what does that say about democracy? Most of us voters are unwashed masses, uncredentialed in most things, yet we are asked to cast votes that will determine the fate of our country. Murray's attitude can be seen playing out in the EU (and elsewhere, including the US), where people are increasingly being denied the chance to vote for the candidates they support.
I'll end with this post by Mike Benz:
Dave Smith Discusses with Joe Rogan. Glenn Greenwald is spot on.
Among other things, this situation raises First Amendment issues:
Three weeks ago, Representative Laurel Libby of Maine’s 64th District posted on Facebook that a high school athlete won first place in girls’ pole vaulting at the Class B state championship after having competed the year before in the boys’ event and finishing in a tie for fifth place.Libby’s post is constitutionally protected. She was speaking out about the policy in her state, set by the Maine High School Principals Association, that a high school athlete may participate in competitions for the gender with which they identify. Her post was also part of a nationwide debate. Maine Governor Janet Mills and President Trump have publicly sparred over the president’s executive order proposing to cut off education funding if states do not ban transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports.
But just days after Libby’s post, the Maine House speaker and majority leader demanded she take it down. When she refused, the majority leader introduced a censure resolution — to be heard in the House the next day — because Libby’s post had included photos and the first name of the student, who is a minor. Libby sought to defend herself in the hastily called House vote, but was repeatedly cut off. The censure resolution passed 75-70 on a party-line vote.
If all the censure did was express disapproval of Libby’s actions, that would be one thing.
A state legislative body is entitled to express displeasure with a member’s actions, which by itself does not violate the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court recently ruled.
But in Libby’s case, the Maine House went further, much further. When Libby refused to apologize for her protected speech, the House speaker declared she would be barred from speaking on the House floor or voting on any legislation until she capitulated. Thus, the House majority party has precluded Libby from doing her job and effectively disenfranchised her constituents, end-running Maine constitutional provisions that say a representative cannot be expelled absent a two-thirds vote or recall election.
My guiding assumption is that people rationally make decisions based upon the information they digest. Thus, change their informational (media) ecosystem and you will change their beliefs and behavior, yet they will be convinced that they never changed--that they are the same person as always.
