I used to live in a blue state that had a lot of issues. In addition to the bad policies and the incredible taxes, they couldn't seem to get the concept of proper governance right -- serving the people, not lording their power over them. 

That's why I fled my blue state for the free state of Texas. Texas isn't perfect any more than any other place is, but they do appear to have a deep belief, at least in the area I'm in, in leaving you alone to live your life as you choose. There's also a greater sense that everyone is your neighbor that I hadn't fully appreciated before which is a wonderful thing to experience. There are so many differences from speech to gun rights, along with a fundamental difference in approach to governance -- they believe in limited government and staying out of your way as opposed to constantly attempting to control you. They hold true to the belief that you have inherent rights upon which the government cannot infringe. Blue states will say that but then seem to do what they want, regardless of what rights they infringe upon. 

I talk about my move in the context of something George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley wrote about -- which states are "anti-free speech" states. Our friends at our sister site Twitchy pointed out his list, and I wanted to share it with you. Now, you could probably figure out some of the states that might be on the list -- there's an amazing synchronicity between blue states and the people who want to control your speech. 

Turley notes:

The 5th Circuit previously ruled in Missouri v. Biden that administration officials “likely violated” the First Amendment and issued a preliminary injunction banning the government from communicating with social media companies to limit speech.

As we noted, the injunction was stayed pending a decision by the Supreme Court on the merits of the case. 

Good News/Bad News From the Supreme Court on Missouri v. Biden

But 23 states and the District of Columbia have now signed on with the Biden administration as "amici states" to combat "harmful content" on the internet and "misleading information." That's the list Turley is talking about. 

NEW YORK, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, HAWAI‘I, ILLINOIS, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

That's a pretty concerning list of states that don't seem perturbed by what the Biden team did and don't seem to fully appreciate the point of the First Amendment. It's also a pretty significant chunk of the country. That should scare anyone. They seem to think such government action is cool, and they'll do it, insisting it's for your own good to protect you from "harm." Who gets to decide what is "harmful" or "misleading" when you start going down this road? Maybe I don't need the state to decide what speech is somehow harmful to me. 

Yes, my old state is on the list. You can check and see if the state you live in made the roster.