Ted Lieu: The Teeny Tiny Tyrant

Wow. Take eight seconds to hear from the Teeny Tiny Tyrant Ted Lieu:

Thanks for confirming what we already knew, Ted.

But for the fact that our Founders put constraints on the Government, idiots like Ted Lieu would run roughshod over your unalienable rights.

Sure, Ted goes on to explain the government shouldn’t be regulating speech (because the First Amendment prevents them).  Whereas he thinks tech companies like Google should do more to regulate speech.

Not quite sure how that helps his case.  But in the interests of full disclosure, I thought I’d point out that there’s more to that clip.

The other reason I add that caveat is because I think it is much more telling than Teeny Tiny Tyrant Ted realizes.

He’s effectively saying “I’d love to do it, but I can’t because of the Constitution. So I hope tech companies will do more to make up for the fact that I can’t do it.”

In other words, they’re using a cut-out.  Government censorship by proxy.

This is why I oppose social media censorship. And this is exactly why I think it violates the First Amendment. The Democrats are using social media companies as a proxy to restrict speech since they themselves are Constitutionally prevented from doing so.

The other thing that’s remarkable here is, despite thinking government shouldn’t regulate speech, Teeny Tiny Tyrant Ted would love to be able to regulate speech.

Love to.

Love. To.

And it isn’t just on CNN that Ted expresses this desire to regulate free speech.

He also does it on Twitter:

So in other words, Teeny Tiny Tyrant Ted Lieu wishes he could put the screws to those with whom he disagrees. But, alas, he can’t.

Damn that Constitution!!

This is like saying, “I’d love to murder you and cut you into a hundred pieces. But I can’t because it’s illegal.”

But see, if you truly believe that Freedom of Speech is an unalienable right, you wouldn’t “love to” or even “like to” regulate it.

Nor, in my way of thinking, would you encourage social media companies to do more to limit speech on your behalf.

Does Ted Lieu think it makes him look like a big believer in the Bill of Rights to say, “sure I’d love to be a tyrant, but that pesky Constitution gets in my way? So I hope the social media companies will do it for me.”

Someone who believes your right to free speech is unalienable wouldn’t dream or fantasize about silencing anyone.

But Ted Lieu does.

Which is all kinds of ironic.

After all, Teeny Tiny Tyrant Ted is one of the Democrats in Congress that just can’t stop mewling about how much Donald Trump wants to be a Dictator.

On Planet Earth we call that “projection.”

Hit the Tip Jar!

Every dollar makes a difference!  Hit the DONATE button in the side bar.  Or, set up a recurring monthly contribution by choosing SUBSCRIBE.

Please White List Patriot Retort

Not everyone can afford to make a donation.  But you can still help keep this site solvent by white listing PatriotRetort.com in your ad blocker. Ads help pay for this site and ad-blockers hurt that effort.  I made sure that the ads that appear here will not obstruct or interfere with your enjoyment of the content.  So please add PatriotRetort.com to your white list.

Share, share, share

5 thoughts on “Ted Lieu: The Teeny Tiny Tyrant

  • December 12, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    And of course this silly little anus Ted Lieu is from Commiefornia. What the hell is wrong with the voters in that state?

  • December 12, 2018 at 8:09 pm

    Social media are privately owned companies. If Google or Facebook want to regulate content, that is their right as a privately owned company. I want government out of our lives, including privately owned business. There are other social websites you can use if you don’t like G or FB. IMO. Let the market decide. Not government.

    • December 12, 2018 at 8:20 pm

      And when these so-called “private” companies are working in concert with one political side while actively suppressing the other, they’re no longer “private” companies. At the very least, they should be treated like publishers who can be held accountable for content just like every other publisher is. The reason they aren’t is because government provided them a loophole. Don’t kid yourself thinking they are “private companies.” They aren’t. Not when Congress carved out exemptions that lets these asshole behave like publishers without the same accountability.

  • December 13, 2018 at 10:53 am


    They can do this all they want, but if so they can not claim to be an unregulated medium free from libel and slander laws. Once they begin enforcing an editorial position, they are no longer exempt and they open themselves up to major tort applications.

    Example: There was a series of YouTube videos that told provably false and known by the individual to be false at the time of posting stories that defamed a group of people. Alphabet was able to get themselves removed from the case (and off the hook for millions of dollars) because they are a “common carrier not a publisher”. Once they are editing content, they no longer fit the definition of a common carrier and are liable for any libels published on their platform because they have been shown to exert editorial control over content. Legally this is no small matter, and their CEOs need to think very hard about this before heading down this path. Someone with deep pockets and an axe to grind will take them to court and claim damages high enough to cause serious share-holder pain.

    If they are going to claim to be a common carrier, they need to stick to the rules governing that definition, otherwise they need to be taken to the cleaners every time a libel is committed on their platforms.

  • December 13, 2018 at 1:37 pm

    They would love you in China. Go Back to your roots(in China)

Comments are closed.