I oppose Musk's decision to suspend journalists, even if they were "doxxing" him, largely because I don't believe that any speech should be suspended unless it's actually illegal. But the social media sites have long said "abusive" speech can be banned, which has always been a fuzzy standard. So this is nothing new.
What's new is that the bans are hitting a group that previously thought they were immune -- because they work for the institutional media; because they are on the left; because they knew whom to call at Twitter to protect themselves, or to have other people banned. Now they are throwing tantrums.
I dropped in on a Twitter "space" last night where some of these banned (really, suspended) journalists were gathering to gripe about the situation. They, like, sound like college students, you know, and, yeah, like, they aren't happy about being punished. They didn't lift a finger during bans under previous ownership.
So while I think Twitter is a better place without such suspensions, and that Musk is taking a commercial risk that the company could become another small conservative platform if enough people leave, I have zero sympathy for the people who encouraged censorship just so their "side" could win an election.
If we're playing by their rules, what we should do is call their advertisers and ask whether they have stopped buying ads on publications that saw journalists suspended. That's how the NYT and CNN sought to destroy competitors under the old regime. It won't happen. But now they know a little about how it feels.
This week's show will be slightly different from the norm: we'll focus on clips and topics, rather than guests -- and that, hopefully, will mean more input from the callers (unless you are all watching football on opening weekend).
Topics:
- The state of the economy
- The fight against crime
- The midterm election fight
- The struggle for peace between Russia and Ukraine
- The airstrike on the Venezuelan drug cartel
- The attempt to sink Kennedy
- The war in Gaza
- The case against Harvard
- The Trump presidency
Tune in: SiriusXM Patriot 125, 7-10 p.m. ET / 4-7 p.m. PT
Call: 866-957-2874
This week's Torah portion includes several laws about conduct in civic and personal life, the common theme of which is boundaries -- setting bounds to what one may do at home, at work, and even in the battlefield.
One noteworthy passage concerns Amalek, the evil nation that attacked the Children of Israel as they made their Exodus from slavery to freedom. Deuteronomy 25:17-19 commands Jews to obliterate Amalek's memory.
The South African government accused Israel of genocide on the basis of a story about Amalek in the Book of Samuel, in which King Saul was commanded to wipe out the entire evil Amalekite nation.
Because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quoted this week's portion -- "Remember what Amalek did to you" (25:17), the South African government claimed he was commanding soldiers to commit genocide.
It was an absurd and malevolent misreading of the Bible and of Jewish tradition. The commandment, as observed by Jews today, is to remember the evil of Amalek and fight ...
