Now let me read to you some quotes I'm seeing this morning. So Jennifer Rubin writes for The Washington Post, and she says — and I think she's talking about Sarah Sanders being ejected from the Red Hen restaurant — Jennifer Rubin writes, "It is not altogether a bad thing to show those who think they're exempt from personal responsibility that their actions bring scorn, exclusion, and rejection." In other words, she's supporting Sarah Sanders being driven out because people have a different opinion.

Now isn't that Nazi stuff right there? Didn't Jennifer Rubin just become the Nazi? Because she seems completely unaware of the fact that half of the country would consider what she's saying right now, plus other things she's said in writing, to be completely irresponsible. Indeed they're so irresponsible that it has put the country at the verge of civil war over basically nothing. And her standard is that if something genuinely seems to you to be over the line, then it's okay to show your scorn and your derision and to reject. This doesn't end well. It's pretty much the opposite of at least the concept of — I know this is not technically, you're gonna disagree with me technically, but just the vibe of it — anti-free-speech. Because the whole point of free speech is people get to say unpleasant things but we still live together.

Now I realize that free speech is about the government and not about citizen-to-citizen stuff. But if citizens can do what government used to be able to do, which is censor, citizens are the government now. By the way, I've argued this before. In the old days the government was in charge and told the citizens what to do, sort of, at least in between elections. At the moment the citizens are in charge through social media and the government is largely responsive in real time. You saw that with the president reversing himself on the family staying together. The public is in charge.

So in the old days when the Constitution was written it was assumed that the only entity that could really make a difference to your free speech was the government. And so the Constitution said, hey government, you cannot abridge people's free speech. The part they left out, because they could not have seen 200 years later that the government would not be in control but rather the people are in control through social media and the government just responds, is that now the power to take away your free speech lies with the people. And we don't have a law against that. We don't have a constitution that says people can't discriminate against people. And I don't know how you could enforce it anyway. But the point is that free speech is no longer practical. It's still legal but it's not practical.