Aletho News


The Death Of Free Speech: Zuckerberg Asks Governments For Instructions On “What Discourse Should Be Allowed”

By Jonathon Turley | February 17, 2020

I have written for years on the effort of European countries to expand their crackdown on free speech globally through restrictions on social media and Internet speech. It appears that Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has relented in what may prove the death knell for free speech in the West. Zuckerberg seems to relent in asking governments for regulations stipulating what speech will be permitted on Facebook and other platforms. It is the ultimate victory of France, Germany, and England in their continuing attack on free expression though hate speech laws and speech regulation.

Zuckerberg told an assembly of Western leaders Saturday at the Munich Security Conference that “There should be more guidance and regulation from the states on basically — take political advertising as an example — what discourse should be allowed?” He did add: “Or, on the balance of free expression and some things that people call harmful expression, where do you draw the line?” The problem is that his comments were received as accepting that government will now dictate the range of free speech. What is missing is the bright line rule long maintained by the free speech community.

As tragically demonstrated in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, speech regulations inevitably expand with time. The desire to silence one’s critics becomes insatiable for both governments and individuals.

Zuckerberg is facing great pressure, including from Democratic leaders in the United States, to regulate political speech and he seems to be moving away from the bright-line position against such regulation as a principle. Instead, he is accepting the fluid concept of “balanced” regulations that has always preceded expanding speech codes and criminalization:

“There are a lot of decisions in these areas that are really just balances between different social values. It’s about coming up with an answer that society feels is legitimate and that they can get behind and understand that you drew the line here on the balance of free expression and safety. It’s not just that there’s one right answer. People need to feel like, ‘OK, enough people weighed in, and that’s why the answer should be this, and we can get behind that.’”


February 17, 2020 - Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , ,


  1. Good, timely, disquieting post. I always admire lawyer/Professor Turley.

    Re limiting/killing free speech: Q — qui bono? ; A — Zionism, of course. Its platform Ziomonster and all its tentacles and machinations must be “protected” at all cost and by any means.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by roberthstiver | February 17, 2020 | Reply

  2. In the USA today, one is not allowed to criticise Jews, or the actions of a Jew, even if he/she is guilty of a heinous crime, with the possible exception of Bernie Madoff, who stole from very rich Jewish people…..

    “If you want to know who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize”…..Voltaire

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities(9/11), can make you commit atrocities”(Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria)……..Voltaire

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by Brian Harry, Australia | February 17, 2020 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: