"[M]any on the left are blaming the media. 'The media lynched Jason Arday,' declared Ibram X. Kendi...."

"Important British progressives... signed an open letter demanding some sort of official oversight of journalistic decision-making. 'Self-regulation of the press has comprehensively failed,' it said. The writer Will Self called, in an open letter to Prime Minister Andy Burnham, for the police to begin 'impounding computers,' presumably belonging to people involved in covering the scandal... Some who once championed Arday seem to be trying to deflect from their own embarrassing credulity, and it is unlikely to work...."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "After a Scholar’s Awful Death, Mistaken Calls for Censorship" (NYT gift link).

"Many of the people who didn’t bother questioning Arday’s back story should have known better; today their oversight looks less like respect than condescension, as if no one took him seriously enough to think hard about what he was saying. 'Arday was treated not as a scholar but as a mascot,' Jason Okundaye wrote in the left-leaning Guardian.... For people on the left, it’s sure easier to talk about the feral excesses of the right-wing press than the willful gullibility of certain elite progressives."

What she's politely calling "condescension" and "the willful gullibility of certain elite progressives" is racism. The way they treated him reflected a belief in his inferiority.

When late-night comedians found censorship deeply seductive.

The Late Night show hosts were so giddy and celebratory after Trump was banned from social media.

They absolutely LOVE censorship until someone accusing one of them of crossing the line. Then they become supporters of free speech.pic.twitter.com/7igDcNzvXn

— MAZE (@mazemoore) May 2, 2026

"The British government has blocked Ye from entry on the grounds that his presence would not be conducive to the public good...."

"Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it 'deeply concerning' that Ye was scheduled to perform 'despite his previous antisemitic remarks and celebration of Nazism.' 'Antisemitism in any form is abhorrent and must be confronted clearly and firmly wherever it appears... Everyone has a responsibility to ensure Britain is a place where Jewish people feel safe and secure.'"

I'm reading "London music festival canceled after Britain bans headliner Kanye West/The move comes after days of mounting controversy over past antisemitic statements made by the rapper, now known as Ye" (WaPo).

West has apologized and stated "I love Jewish people," but he did sell swastika T-shirts and release a song called "Heil Hitler." 

"Justices Reject Colorado Law Banning ‘Conversion Therapy’ for L.G.B.T.Q. Minors."

"Colorado and more than 20 other states restrict therapists from trying to change the gender identity or sexual orientation of L.G.B.T.Q. clients under the age of 18."

The NYT reports.

“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for himself and seven other justices from across the ideological spectrum. “But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.” 

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, reading a lengthy summary of her opposition from the bench.

Here's the opinion: Chiles v. Salazar. 

The Times headline needs to be sharpened up. The Court didn't "reject" the whole "law." The opinion says that the therapist, Chiles, "stresses that she provides only talk therapy, employing no physical techniques or medications." And the case returns to the lower court to apply the correct standard — strict scrutiny.

Jackson's idea:

"Here’s a thought experiment: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying."

"Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing? Of course not. Because infinite scroll is not inherently harmful. Autoplay is not inherently harmful. Algorithmic recommendations are not inherently harmful. These features only matter because of the content they deliver. The 'addictive design' does nothing without the underlying user-generated content that makes people want to keep scrolling.... If every editorial decision about how to present third-party content is now a 'design choice' subject to product liability, Section 230 protects effectively nothing...."

Writes Mike Masnick, in "Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For" (TechDirt).

I found that because David French links to it in "Don’t Cheer Too Hard for the Facebook Verdicts." French writes: "It’s quite possible that these verdicts will be overturned or heavily modified on appeal. But that process can take years. In the meantime, there will almost certainly be many more trials and many more verdicts that will put social media companies under pressure to increase their own censorship and their own controls over free speech online."

"The State Department is taking decisive action against five individuals who have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose."

Said Marco Rubio, quoted in "'Witch hunt': Ex-EU commissioner Breton denounces U.S. visa ban targeting ‘censorship'" (CNBC). 

The Trump administration imposed visa bans on Thierry Breton, a former European Union commissioner behind the Digital Services Act (DSA), and four anti-disinformation campaigners, accusing them of censoring U.S. social media platforms.... The DSA forces tech giants like Google and Meta to police illegal content more aggressively, or face hefty fines.... 

Breton... wrote on X: “Is McCarthy’s witch hunt back?” He added: “As a reminder: 90% of the European Parliament — our democratically elected body — and all 27 Member States unanimously voted the DSA. To our American friends: Censorship isn’t where you think it is."

I can't find anything by Breton explaining his idea of "where" censorship really is. Try to persuade us, Thierry. Give us a chance to argue with you. If you've got a good idea put it up for sale in the marketplace of ideas. Prove us wrong.

ADDED: Breton seems to be giving priority to whatever the majority decides to do. We Americans have traditionally put individual rights above majoritarian choice. I suspect that when he says "Censorship isn’t where you think it is," he means it's never censorship when it's done democratically. Believe that, and you don't believe in individual rights. 

"The governor acknowledged that it is highly unlikely he would endorse a similar initiative for more progressive, left-leaning causes..."

"... but added that 'it would not be illegal' for them to exist in public schools. Abbott signed Senate Bill 12 earlier this year, a sweeping state law that banned student clubs with an LGBTQ+ focus...."

From "Texas launches plan to open Turning Point USA chapters in every high school/Republican officials in Oklahoma and Florida have also launched plans to expand the presence of the conservative youth organization founded by Charlie Kirk" (Texas Tribune).

Naturally: "Petitions calling for the removal of the school chapters have also emerged, with some students and parents criticizing the national organization for what they describe as 'racist, homophobic, and sexist hate speech on college campuses across America.' The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group that tracks extremism, describes Turning Point as an organization with a strategy of sowing fear 'that white Christian supremacy is under attack by nefarious actors, including immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights activists.'"

Painfully: "Disclosure: Southern Poverty Law Center has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization... Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism...."

How dishonest is "it would not be illegal" given Senate Bill 12?

"You have to watch out for being idolized too much. It can very quickly go from that to, ‘I thought you were God and...'"

"'... you didn’t solve my problem, you betrayed everything you stand for,' which was actually not everything you stood for, it was something they decided you stood for."

Said Margaret Atwood, quoted in "For a Literary Saint, Margaret Atwood Can Sure Hold a Grudge/She had to be pushed to write her new memoir, 'Book of Lives.' The result reveals the experiences (and a few slights) that have shaped her work" (NYT).

"Ahead of the verdict... most of them pleaded that they had a right to humor, satire, and impertinence, while others outright evoked the 'Charlie Hebdo spirit.'"

I'm reading "10 French Trolls Are Tried for Cyberbullying Brigitte Macron—and They’re Mostly Not Sorry/'I don’t think I’m part of any harassment,' said one defendant, who had called the first lady a 'degenerate pedo-satanist slut' and a 'shitty tranny'" (Vanity Fair).

The defendants’ tweets compared [Brigitte] Macron to an “old tranny” and “a first lady boy” “who wears size 47 shoes.” Jérôme A., for his part, wrote: “An ultra minority of weirdos have taken power in Paris. Who doubts Brigitte’s cock?”

“I’m accused of nine tweets spaced over four months,” he pointed out, as if surprised to find himself in court for so little. Why, in the flood of vulgar, insulting comments on the internet, did the law take an interest in him? “I wonder what I’m doing here,” he complained. “Today, you can send people to police custody for a few harmless tweets, end up in cells that smell of piss, be summoned for several days in Paris. It’s frightening.”

Vanity Fair shows close to no concern about censorship and government abuse of power. Notice the language: "as if surprised to find himself in court for so little," "he complained."

The author, Hugo Wintrebert, appears to be French. But France has a brilliant tradition of satirizing government officials that goes back to the Middle Ages, and there's plenty of sexual imagery to be found.

"The medical consensus is usually reasonable and important. But have there been times when it has been politicized or influenced by ideology?"

Said Justice Alito in yesterday's oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar. He was confronting the lawyer defending Colorado's law prohibiting licensed therapy treatments aimed at changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. The lawyer responds:

MS. STEVENSON: We have no facts about that in this case, but I wouldn’t disagree that it’s possible.

JUSTICE ALITO: Isn’t it a fact that it’s happened in the past?... “Three generations of idiots are enough”?

Those few quoted words invoke an infamous case, Buck v. Bell, where a state had seen fit to sterilize  a "feeble minded woman" without her consent. The Supreme Court did not object to the state's approach to medical science.

MS. STEVENSON: That’s certainly a concern. If there were evidence in the record that a standard of care wasn’t based on patient safety, that would be highly relevant.

Justice Alito didn't ask about whether the motive was correct — whether medical scientists were sincerely pursuing patient safety. He was concerned with whether the goal was pursued in a truly scientific manner and was not skewed by politics and ideology. 

JUSTICE ALITO: Isn’t that a reason to apply First Amendment scrutiny when what’s being regulated is pure speech, rather than just accepting the medical standard of care and medical consensus as the end of the matter, allowing rational basis review where anything goes?

The lawyer must resist this idea that the therapy is "pure speech." The idea she uses is that these are "words used to deliver medical treatment" (which are different from words expressing the opinion that conversion therapy is good (or bad)):

"The authorities have punished two bloggers who advocated for a life of less work and less pressure; an influencer who said..."

"... that it made financial sense not to marry and have children; and a commentator known for bluntly observing that China still lags behind Western countries in terms of quality of life. These supposed cynics and skeptics, two of whom had tens of millions of followers, have had their accounts suspended or banned in recent weeks as China’s internet regulator conducts a new cleanup of Chinese social media.... 'In reality, we all experience fatigue and anxiety as a result of work and life, but these real emotions deserve respect and should not be deliberately amplified for traffic. The internet is not a dumping ground for negativity,' China’s state broadcaster CCTV said in an editorial about the campaign...."

From "Cheer Up, or Else: China Cracks Down on the Haters and Cynics/As China struggles with economic discontent, internet censors are silencing those who voice doubts about work, marriage, or simply sigh too loudly online" (NYT).

"[China's crackdown] demonstrates the concern among its leadership about the spread of malaise.... In recent years, some young people have opted out of the rat race in favor of a minimal life of 'lying flat' or given up on goals altogether and 'letting it rot.' The accounts of two bloggers known for promoting a minimal 'lying flat' lifestyle were blocked from adding followers late last month...."

"If you are a minor struggling with gender dysphoria, and you want to become comfortable with your body, the Colorado law won’t allow that."

"But there is an explicit exception in the law that allows a counselor to encourage a gender transition."

Said Jim Campbell, lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom, quoted in "Supreme Court to hear arguments on Colorado ban of conversion therapy for minors" (WaPo). Oral argument is this morning.

The Supreme Court laid out a test for state laws regulating speech by medical professionals in a 2018 case. The government must show a compelling interest to impose content-based regulation on professional speech and must narrowly tailor any such law, the court ruled. Nevertheless, the high court found the government could regulate professional conduct that “incidentally” steps on free speech rights.... 

The state points to studies that show conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful.... What’s more, the state argues, if the Supreme Court embraces [the therapist's] free speech arguments, it could undermine professional standards and consumer protections....

There seems to be a weakness in the whole idea of the government licensing talk therapists. People can talk to each other about whatever they want, when there's no issue of the state giving the relationship a seal of approval. Once there is a system of designating some conversationalists "licensed therapists," it must consist of line-drawing about speech. 

And if Colorado gets away with its ban on conversion therapy, wouldn't that entitle some other state to ban affirming transgender identity?

UPDATED: I listened to most of the oral argument (which was available at the WaPo link). I'll have more to say when I get the transcript. 3 things I'll be looking for are: 1. Whether the state can take sides in what is really an ideological dispute, 2. Would the state's argument work in "mirror image" cases, where a state has adopted the other ideological side, and 3. Did the lawyer for Colorado really say that "talk therapy" was around at the time of the founding?

If it wasn't viewpoint discrimination but actually some violation of the terms of the permit, I think they would have articulated the violation...

... so that we wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's viewpoint discrimination. But with the failure to to articulate the violation, I think we are entitled to presume it was viewpoint discrimination. No jumping required.

That's my response to "Park Service removes statue of Trump and Epstein from National Mall/The statue, the latest installation by an anonymous group of artists critical of the president, was supposed to be on display until 8 p.m. Sunday" (WaPo)(gift link):

The National Park Service removed a statue of President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein holding hands from the National Mall early Wednesday morning, a day after it was placed there. 'The statue was removed because it was not compliant with the permit issued," Interior Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Peace said in an email. She did not respond to follow-up questions about how or why the statue was not in compliance or if the department had provided the required 24-hour written notice before revoking the permit....

Carol Flaisher, a D.C.-based location manager, filed the permit application with the National Park Service on behalf of the artists who created the statue. She said that in over 40 years of working with the Park Service arranging installations and filming, she has never had a permit revoked.

The permit issued to Flaisher says: “Superintendent may revoke this permit at any time after providing 24 hours’ written notice to the Permittee setting forth the reasons for the revocation.”

Yeah, it's a stupid statue. But now the stupidity of the government has turned it into a monument to freedom.

ADDED: Reading more of the article, I see: "In a video of the statue’s removal provided to The Washington Post, a National Park Service official can be seen saying that the installation is 'out of compliance' because it is several feet larger than stated in the permit. The video was taken by a security team member who had been assigned to monitor the statue as required by the permit."

If that's the answer, why didn't Interior Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Peace put that in her original email response to The Washington Post? Why did she not respond to the follow-up questions if there is such an easy answer? If she cared about the First Amendment or if this really was the true answer, why wasn't she eager to provide it?

I see that "Flaisher said there was a height discrepancy because the base of the statue was not included in the permit approval. But she said no objections were raised when the statue was placed on the Mall, and she was never informed there was an issue."

So is it to be all about the plinth?

"I can’t believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. The White House was told by ABC that his Show was cancelled! Something happened between then and now..."

"... because his audience is GONE, and his 'talent' was never there. Why would they want someone back who does so poorly, who’s not funny, and who puts the Network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat GARBAGE. He is yet another arm of the DNC and, to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major Illegal Campaign Contribution. I think we’re going to test ABC out on this. Let’s see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million Dollars. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers! Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad Ratings."

Writes Donald Trump, at Truth Social.

It's hard to believe the President of the United States writes things like that and publishes them, but this is where we are.

MEANWHILE:

Go to 5:42 for the part about Ted Cruz. Go to 6:34 for the denial of any "intention to make light of the murder of a young man."

"Jimmy Kimmel Returns: ABC Ends Suspension Starting Tuesday."

Variety reports.

Good! Glad to hear it. Un-martyr the man and put him back in the position that fits him, an ordinary host of a old-fashioned late-night show who might occasionally say something in slightly poor taste. 

"There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."

Said Pam Bondi, quoted in "Bondi takes heat from the right after vowing to prosecute 'hate speech': ‘We will absolutely target you'" (NY Post).

Takes heat and deserves it.

Among the conservative commentary at the link there is this 2024 tweet from Charlie Kirk himself:

Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. 

And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. 

Keep America free.

"In January, the Texas police entered a group exhibition at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth that featured [Sally] Mann, and they seized several photos from the 'Immediate Family' series..."

"... her landmark monograph of their three preadolescent children, Emmett, Jessie and Virginia — in which the children appear nude. (None is more graphic than your average Christ child of the Italian Renaissance.) The police were prepared to bring charges of child pornography against the museum, even sending officers on a (broadly discredited) investigation of art museums in New York, according to the Fort Worth Report. A grand jury declined to bring it to trial, and Mann’s photos were later returned to Gagosian, her gallery. But to the artist and many journalists, the seizure seemed to bring a belated, QAnon-era fruition to the allegations of child exploitation that Mann has weathered since unveiling the photos in the 1990s..."

From "Sally Mann, in Her Golden Hour, Faces Fresh Culture Wars/One of America’s finest memoirists, in photos and in prose, is at the peak of her powers in 'Art Work'— and wondering if her pictures will survive" (NYT)(free-access link, so you can see some of her photos, not the seized photos, and read the whole story).

"In her attic, Mann stared at a stack of the 150 unexhibited 'Black Men' prints, wrapped in opaque plastic. Downstairs, we clicked through scans of them: forearms, backs, hands folded, prayerlike. A photograph is two things, Roland Barthes said: what it says to the world and what it says to you. Mann has found herself hounded by that first way of seeing.

"We ask all broadcasters to refrain from showcasing any disruptions or reactions in response to the President’s attendance in any capacity."

Said the memo from the United States Tennis Association, quoted in "USTA asks broadcasters to censor reaction to Donald Trump’s attendance at U.S. Open" (NYT).

"We regularly ask our broadcasters to refrain from showcasing off-court disruptions," said a USTA spokesman.

If the President is showcasing himself, shouldn't the anti-President forces get their say? Well... the President's attendance at the event is to watch tennis, which fits with the USTA enterprise of displaying tennis to all of us, traditionally done with celebrities in the live audience. The protesters' opposition to the President has nothing to do with tennis. They want to speak/"speak" on a different topic. The President is only "speaking" (silently) about his (possibly bogus) interest in tennis, so it's not really censorship... is it?

If you feel that Trump's occupation of the presidency is a highly alarming catastrophe, these fine distinctions are outrageous and intolerable. I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring up Hitler's showcasing of himself at the 1936 Olympics:

"This was not a case of we say tomayto, you say tomahto. This was we say tomato, while you cannot say anything these days because of the EU and its rules..."

"... not to mention the repressive government of Great Britain. A citizen of that benighted nation had come to Washington to talk about what he had seen: a fellow named Nigel Farage. 'I have come today to be a klaxon,' he said in his opening remarks. The klaxon appeared in a bright blue suit, telling the story of the Irish comedian Graham Linehan, who was arrested at Heathrow airport this week for something he had said on social media. Linehan had been arrested by five armed police officers, he said. While it is perfectly ordinary for police to be armed to the teeth in the United States, 'it is a big deal in the UK,' he said. 'This could happen to any American man or woman that goes to Heathrow that has said things online.' American politicians and businesses and all freedom-loving people should say to the British government, "at what point did you become North Korea?"' Farage said."

From "Farage’s rules for free speech: talk about anything but your lunch/The Reform leader defended Democrats’ right to say dreadful things about him — but said some things were better left unsaid" (London Times).

The headline referred to Farage's "discretion" in refusing to say who he needed to leave to have lunch with — clearly, the President.

Also interesting: Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson talked so much, asking questions and interrupting answers, that "Farage asked the chairman if he could go and 'get a cup of coffee or something' until it was his turn to speak."

Here's the video. I love the freeze frame:

"It’s time this government told the police their job is to protect the public, not monitor social media for hurty words."

Said Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, quoted in "Comedian Graham Linehan arrested over trans tweets/The 57-year-old TV writer says he has been ordered not to use the social media platform X while he has been released on bail after being detained by armed police at Heathrow" (London Times).

"Hurty words" is a useful and musical phrase. Badenoch didn't coin it. I'm seeing, from back in March 2024 in the London Times, "Islamophobic tweets just ‘hurty words’, says mayoral candidate/Susan Hall, the Tory hoping to run London, was responding to claims about Sadiq Khan and Londonistan.'" Someone in the comments there writes: "Anyone using the infantile term 'hurty words' calls into question their suitability for high office." Is it infantile or is it a satirical way to accuse those who are complaining about hurtful speech of being big babies?

Also in the London Times, from last April, there's "Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages/Civil liberties groups say that the authorities are over-policing the internet and threatening free speech using vague laws": Quoting Toby Young, the founder and director of the Free Speech Union: "Given that only 11 per cent of the violent and sexual offence cases in England and Wales were closed after a suspect was caught or charged in the year to June 2024, a steep decline on previous years, it seems extraordinary that the police are wasting so much time arresting people for hurty words."

The OED has not yet acknowledged "hurty" — other than as a word in heraldry:

1828 Hurty, charged with hurts, or semée of hurts, that is, strewed over with hurts. W. Berry, Encyclopaedia Heraldica Gloss.

I believe hurts are blue dots — azure roundels.