Read on Twitter
The first four Amendments in the Bill of Rights in particular were meant to enshrine a right to revolution, or at the very least a right to plan one collectively.
As such, it should be no great surprise that rights to speech, assembly, arms, and against arbitrary search and seizure would be used by those planning insurrection. Nor that a government wanting to protect itself from overthrow should seek substantially to limit these rights.
In my view, both Glenn Greenwald and those pissed at him are failing to grapple adequately with these points.
Trump and his supporters attempted to overthrow Congress on Jan 6.
They made heavy use of Bill of Rights protections to openly plan and enact a (so far failed) coup.
Trump and his supporters attempted to overthrow Congress on Jan 6.
They made heavy use of Bill of Rights protections to openly plan and enact a (so far failed) coup.
And they have made it clear that they will continue to use those protections in a continued push to undo the vote as certified and keep Trump as President.
So, yes, Biden's proposed Domestic Terrorism law will be used against Black Lives Matter and Environmental activists.
So, yes, Biden's proposed Domestic Terrorism law will be used against Black Lives Matter and Environmental activists.
And, yes, there has long been reason to be concerned about Big Tech monopolies having the power to shut down speech they don't like (like the recent #PoliceLeaks).
But we are also in an extraordinary, emergency time.
But we are also in an extraordinary, emergency time.
If one supports the most full understanding of free speech and the full panoply of rights enshrined in the first ten Amendments in such a way that the baddies in Big Tech should be essentially libertarians about them ...
Then those rights may well be used to destroy the Constitutions Separation of Powers into three branches.
Trump has, of course, previously discussed shutting down Congress to give himself more absolute power. This at the beginning of the pandemic: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/17/trumps-threat-adjourn-congress-unnecessary-and-archaic-column/5148245002/
In a normal Constitutional crisis, you would look to the head of the Executive to make the hard choice about whether some rights might need to be temporarily restricted to save the body politic, constituted as a whole (e.g. Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War).
In Nixon's day, the Constitutional crisis involving the head of the Executive was resolved with enough pressure on Nixon to resign.
Bush, as Greenwald rightly came to despise, made running over certain human rights in the name of a permanent war on terror an endless act.
Bush, as Greenwald rightly came to despise, made running over certain human rights in the name of a permanent war on terror an endless act.
Greenwald was right to come alive to the need for pushback against that steady erosion of rights.
But back to the discussion at hand.
But back to the discussion at hand.
You can't use an absolutist view of those rights to say a government can never protect itself against the insurrections planned under the protection of those rights.
There are two great threats to the US Constitution at this moment:
The first is that the Executive will forcibly overturn an election, if initially by failing to destroy Congress on January 6th than perhaps instead by interrupting the inauguration of Biden on the 20th.
The first is that the Executive will forcibly overturn an election, if initially by failing to destroy Congress on January 6th than perhaps instead by interrupting the inauguration of Biden on the 20th.
The second is that the US government will use the excuse of such a crisis to further curtail basic, but hard won rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and beyond.
It is now very clear that Greenwald has falsely judged which of the two is a greater threat in this period.
It is understandable. In the wake of 9/11 the far greater threat than that of terror was the threat to fundamental liberties. And Glenn got that right time and again.
It is understandable. In the wake of 9/11 the far greater threat than that of terror was the threat to fundamental liberties. And Glenn got that right time and again.
But at this point, Glenn and his sidekicks like Michael Tracey (beat about the head as he may have been by Maxine Waters) are so sure the greater threat is to individual liberty that no evidence will they entertain that Trump is damaging the heart of American Constitutionalism.
In reality, the real threat to individual liberty comes later.
For now, the President is attempting to remain in office after losing an election.
And there is no one in federal gov (not Cabinet, Pence, Pelosi or McConnell) w/the smarts & wherewithal to seize power from Trump.
For now, the President is attempting to remain in office after losing an election.
And there is no one in federal gov (not Cabinet, Pence, Pelosi or McConnell) w/the smarts & wherewithal to seize power from Trump.
So, while it may well prove not enough, I am, for now, fully supportive of Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. doing what they can to shut Trump the hell up. Let him scream into the void for the next fortnight.
After that, we will all have to fight like hell against the Schiff-Biden domestic terrorism law.
And we will have to figure out how to reinvigorate a public square for free speech.
And we will have to figure out how to reinvigorate a public square for free speech.
Twitter, in its halcyon days, was a place where oppressive governments and agencies from Cairo to Langley, Foggy Bottom, and Fort Meade could be absolutely dragged.
That is no longer the case.
Time to build something new.
But for now, fuck Trump and his dictatorial ambitions.
That is no longer the case.
Time to build something new.
But for now, fuck Trump and his dictatorial ambitions.
