defending, it s essential. absolutely. freedom of speech enables you to argue for other freedoms. that is the point of it. if you don t have freedom of speech, all you can do is as they do in on free societies is blow things up and shoot people. the less freedom of speech we have, the more we have what we saw over the weekend. we have guys rampaging through the street, it doesn t really matter what side of their own. the minute you say you can t book a conference room and hold a debate, you can t have a youtube channel. you can t go on facebook, the logic of that tends toward smashing stuff in the street. whether it s toppling statues like the left did or whether it s camping about with tiki torches like the right dead and rambling on abound and all the rest of it.
when you have someone who is in control of ideas who knows the data of just about all 7 billion people on the planet and its enforcing an ideological straitjacket, i actually think we re moving into a very dark era when youtube and facebook and twitter will bounce more and more people off there monopolies and that will lead to more violence in the street. i m afraid you re right, if there were real liberals, they would understand this. it liberals today are on the side of the mughals, on the side of the facebook people come on the side of jeff basals, have you noticed this?
as recently as ten, 15 years ago, they would at least play pay lip service to that apocryphal quote they didn t agree with what you said, they would defend to the death your right to say it. now they will be out in the streets defending to the death not to listen to it. i don t want anybody to defend me to the death or the daily stormer to the left or the dare to the death or any of them. i don t even want a mildly supportive tweet or facebook post. all i am saying isn t you re saying is that when we have monopoly providers, the idea that they can ideologically constrain that content is very, very dangerous. tucker: is terrifying, thank you for explaining that so well, i appreciate it. a group of trump supporters is suing the city of san jose, california, saying the city failed to keep them safe during the trump rally in 2016.
fading on the left and especially among young people. the 2015 at pew poll found 40 millennials favored restricting speech they thought was offensive. you think they will think twice about banning website they don t like ? they don t. the national right to life? foxnews.com? catholic charities ? why would it be. why wouldn t airbnb and the public supports of a trump from getting rooms, why would facebook eliminate all references to pro-life position positions. today s political opponents could beat tomorrow s designated and terrorists. that s why it s crucial to keep fighting them, keep fighting for an open society, even if people call you names when you do it. the first amendment is america s most famous freedom, the strongest sign that the country is dedicated to the personal liberty of every person who lives there.
bill: when the person leaves. that s the problem. bill: the law is basically to stop them still under government supervision. couple different things. bill: you both say this is constitutional. yes, absolutely. look at the restrictions we already place on offenders when they come out of jail they are on parole. certain places they can t go. bill: certain places they can t live. typically because children are around. they are applying that to the internet now. bill: very good you guys. we got a lot done. we appreciate it charles krauthammer warming up. he will analyze barack obama the terror warrior. is the president morphing into dick cheney? krauthammer is next.