Hillary Clinton and the Lose of Shame in American Politics
By Jonathan Turley
Charlotte Bronte once wrote “I believe that creature is a changeling: she is a perfect cabinet of oddities.” No quote better captured the chilling curiosity that is Hillary Clinton. This week, Clinton (without any sign of shame or self-awareness) attacked others for seeking censorship and blacklisting political opponents through government and corporate collaboration. Clinton is one of the most anti-free speech figures in the United States and actively campaigned for the censorship of opponents. Today, my column in the Hill discusses the hypocrisy of many on the left this week after the suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. However, there is simply no one in the same class as Clinton in hitting hypocrisy’s rock bottom.
This week, Clinton declared: “I think this is a very clear example of using the power of the state to suppress speech. It is a direct government action to try to intimidate employers, organizations, corporations, much of which we’ve already seen, to remove an opponent, even though it’s a comic.”
For many in the free speech community, the statement led us to spit out our morning coffee.
Clinton and her allies have long shown contempt for the intelligence of the voters, often denying facts or flipping positions while denying any inconsistencies. It was a record that produced not only polling as one of the least popular American politicians but also record lows in the public’s view of trustworthiness and authenticity. Clinton’s campaign routinely lied about major issues, including denying to the media that it funded the infamous Steele dossier.
For the record, I have repeatedly criticized Administration statements from recently on free speech and some of the actions taken against critics as threatening to our core values of free speech. This has included threats to prosecute hate speech and flag burning despite countervailing precedent. However, the last person any of us in the free speech community wants to see in this fight is Hillary Clinton.
As I have previously written, Clinton heralded the growing anti-free speech movement and noted that “there are people who are championing it, but it’s been a long and difficult road to getting anything done.”
In my book, I discuss the challenge for anti-free speech champions like Clinton is that it is not easy to convince a free people to give up their freedom.
That is why figures like Clinton are going “old school” and turning to government or corporations to crack down on citizens. One of the lowest moments came after Elon Musk acquired Twitter, promising to restore free speech protections. Clinton called upon European officials to force Elon Musk to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). This is a former democratic presidential nominee calling upon Europeans to push the censorship of Americans.
Clinton praised the anti-free speech efforts in California and New York and called for the rest of the country to replicate the approach of those states.
Clinton added a particularly illuminating line that said the quiet part out loud. This is all about power and the fear that she and others will “lose control” over speech:
“Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects it’s real harm, it’s child porn and threats of violence, things that are terribly dangerous.”
Clinton continues to offer a textbook example of the anti-free speech narrative. While seeking sweeping censorship for anything deemed disinformation, Clinton cites specific examples that are already barred under federal law like child porn.
Not surprisingly, when I spoke in Berlin on free speech, Hillary Clinton also spoke to call for greater speech limits to a highly appreciative European audience. She has been a major voice in fostering the government-corporate alliance that carried out massive censorship of political opponents.
As Bronte noted, this “creature is a changeling: she is a perfect cabinet of oddities.” Fortunately, the public has never been deceived by the changeling. They have always seen her opportunistic attacks as a sign of contempt for them as a bunch of chumps. Both Clinton and the media have learned in prior elections that these narratives are falling flat with most Americans outside of the core Democratic base.
There has to be some lingering residue of shame left; some modicum of decency in refraining from such raw hypocrisy at these moments. Yet, we seem to be living in an era of post-shame politics. The only thing missing is lawyer Joseph Welch:
*********
(TLB) published this article from Jonathan Turley with our appreciation for this perspective
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Header featured image (edited) credit: MSN article tease open card
Emphasis added by (TLB)
••••
••••
Stay Tuned…
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply