Whether a country is actually free is determined not by how well-rewarded its convention-affirming media elites are and how ignored its passive citizens are but by how it treats its dissidents, those posing authentic challenges to what the government does.

Only In America can a renowned and devoted terrorism supporter like Peter King be the arbiter of national security and treason.

Beyond all the other reasons not to do it, free speech assaults always backfire: they transform bigots into martyrs.

As always with any discussion of elite immunity, it's crucial to note that what makes this development such a particularly warped travesty is that the very same elites who enjoy this immunity have created the world's largest, and the Western world's most oppressive and merciless, penal state for ordinary citizens.

Many of the most important stories in the history of modern journalism have come from sources who have taken information without authorization.

For those suggesting criticisms of drone kills should wait until the election: that'd be reasonable if he stops killing until the election.

It is always unconscionable for the government to punish people for expressing an idea merely because government officials - or the majority of citizens - decide that those ideas are 'dangerous' or 'wrong.' That is a power nobody ought to possess.