It is amazing to me that while this goes on in Colorado, and related efforts at mandated ideological conformity thrive in Left-dominated universities, and while the Democratic Party’s national ticket in 2024 endorsed bans on “hate speech” (and falsely claimed that the First Amendment already prohibits instances of their cover-phrase for “speech progressives disagree with”), the Axis still escapes accountability for its claim that “King Trump” is trying to restrict speech.
It is too easy to label this projection or gaslighting. They really believe it. True, the President doesn’t help with his periodic tantrums in which he says that a particular publication, pundit or late-night comedian should be dropped in the fiery pit. Presidents have a duty to embrace, at least officially, the fake Voltaire quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” in all of their public pronouncements. The Mad Left doesn’t believe in that sentiment (really the invention of a Voltaire biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall) however, and has been working for years on redefining speech as conduct, more specifically “violence.”
Punishing speech that the Left finds inconvenient is a Democratic Party tradition that its members seldom admit: Worst President Ever runner-up Woodrow Wilson locked up critics of The Great War (entered thanks to the man who ran for a second term with the slogan “He Kept Us Out of the War!”) whose “crimes” were metaphorical peanuts compared to what Democrats are pushing on the public regarding “Epic Fury.”
Turley’s accurate assessment of Colorado is a useful guide to what the whole nation will face if the Democrats seize control of Congress in November.
Ethics Alarms 
“It is too easy to label this projection or gaslighting. They really believe it.”
This is correct, and it’s important to remember it.
As an example; Donald Trump was never in any danger of securing Colorado’s electoral votes in 2024. So one might reasonably ask: What was behind the efforts to keep him off the ballot? I don’t think the answer can be political, because there’s nothing that agitates a population like the impression that their vote is being suppressed. I think the answer really is as simple as the obvious: They just really don’t like him, and anything they can do to flip him the metaphorical bird is something they’re going to spend resources doing.
It’s unreasonable. It’s illogical. They would be unable to articulate anything more substantive than underpants gnome logic as to why they’re doing it. It’s toddler logic. They’ve built a cottage industry out of performatively self immolating, and they just don’t see the problems, because everything their opponents do is bad, and anything they do in resistance to that is good.