The Media Is Against Free Speech

[Argent]

It's her job to search for the truth and report news and events accurately, as accurately as she can without prejudice. It is OUR JOB, the people, to think what we please.

If the audiences don't demand truth and presentation of facts that can be traced for accuracy, then the status quo prevails. I'm skeptical that the audiences have the capacity to realize they are being scammed by myriad media personalities. An example -- Florida rejects textbooks based on inappropriate material but doesn't give examples. Parents hear that on the news and go ballistic that evil publishers were attempting to groom their children for god knows what and yet no one has seen the material in question to make an independent judgment. Parents swallowed the hype with seeing a shred of evidence. Space lasers, magnetic chips in vaccines. For gosh sakes, the damage that crap does is awful. Free speech alone is worth nothing. Free truthful speech is worth something.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

If the audiences don't demand truth and presentation of facts that can be traced for accuracy, then the status quo prevails. I'm skeptical that the audiences have the capacity to realize they are being scammed by myriad media personalities. An example -- Florida rejects textbooks based on inappropriate material but doesn't give examples. Parents hear that on the news and go ballistic that evil publishers were attempting to groom their children for god knows what and yet no one has seen the material in question to make an independent judgment. Parents swallowed the hype with seeing a shred of evidence. Space lasers, magnetic chips in vaccines. For gosh sakes, the damage that crap does is awful. Free speech alone is worth nothing. Free truthful speech is worth something.

The audience does demand truth and presentation of facts. However, people do, very often, disagree as to what the facts are. Also, the media is supposed to be the one INVESTIGATING in order to get the facts straight, only all too often, they are simply pushing political narratives.

Certainly, the textbook example is good, in that there should be an investigative journalist going out there and sleuthing - call people involved, find out what the textbooks were and read them, ask government officials questions, file freedom of information act requests. - you know - do investigative journalism.

The same was true when the Hunter Biden story came out, about the laptop, and major media simply accepted at face value a bullshit letter from our intelligence community that said the laptop story was Russian Disinformation, and the media led with that story.

YES. That is exactly why we need MORE freedom of speech and LESS censorship - because we can't trust the government or the media when their "narratives" get controlled and other narratives get cesnored.

See?

At least when it comes to the Florida textbook story, most of the media is left wing and most of the media hates desantis, so they write stories highlighting how the State hasn't yet given examples. Good. What we need is the Left wing getting the same treatment. We don't.

 

[JasperL]

All depends on the "consequences." Remember, under equal protection of the law, any legal consequences must apply equally to left wingers.

What legal consequences are you talking about? Being banned from Twitter isn't a "legal consequence." They can be as biased as they want to be, and ban you or me for any reason or no reason. Same duty you owe people in your kitchen - none. Twitter doesn't need to apply rules equally to neo-Nazis and racists and misogynists and anti-gay bigots. Those are just as "valid" political views as the "right" and the "left" as we see them. But do you really think a Jewish-owned website needs to be 'fair' to the anti-Semitic assholes on their forums? The idea is absurd and you know it.

Moderation of a private website is not an infringement of the First Amendment, no. But it is censorship.

Of course it is, and where you are typing now censors users. It's why this place is a nice place to debate. They are not "fair" to racist dirtbags, for example. Boo hoo for them, good for the rest of us.

And if a platform is a de facto town square, then it is not the same thing as a living room or the lobby of an office. If an employer decided to make a rule that only leftist (or only right wing) political views could be expressed in the workplace, that employer would certainly be within their rights to censor like that. But we are also within our rights to criticize such a biased rule as unfair, censorious and douchebaggy. We can make the same assessment of rules in plaforms and discussion fora.

Sure, whine away. That's you exercising your right to free speech.

But Texas passed a law requiring social media (only some of them, obviously....) to be unbiased. So we know what GOP legislators and the governor in one of our biggest states believe, and it's not that social media are within their rights to censor as they see fit. The GOP want government to compel speech - it's that simple. If that law went into effect (it was prevented from doing so by the first court that evaluated it - duh...) it would require Twitter to be indifferent to literal fascists, neo-Nazis, etc. and much more. It would put government in as the de facto moderator of every website. The government cannot and should not do that, whether you pretend it's the "public square" or not.

 

[JasperL]

The audience does demand truth and presentation of facts. However, people do, very often, disagree as to what the facts are. Also, the media is supposed to be the one INVESTIGATING in order to get the facts straight, only all too often, they are simply pushing political narratives.

Certainly, the textbook example is good, in that there should be an investigative journalist going out there and sleuthing - call people involved, find out what the textbooks were and read them, ask government officials questions, file freedom of information act requests. - you know - do investigative journalism.

The same was true when the Hunter Biden story came out, about the laptop, and major media simply accepted at face value a bullshit letter from our intelligence community that said the laptop story was Russian Disinformation, and the media led with that story.

YES. That is exactly why we need MORE freedom of speech and LESS censorship - because we can't trust the government or the media when their "narratives" get controlled and other narratives get cesnored.

See?

At least when it comes to the Florida textbook story, most of the media is left wing and most of the media hates desantis, so they write stories highlighting how the State hasn't yet given examples. Good. What we need is the Left wing getting the same treatment. We don't.

We don't have the left wing getting the same treatment? There's some blackout of Fox News, OANN, etc. in your area? The right wing radio talk shows have gone silent? All the right wing websites taken down? That's horrible!!

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Of course it is, and where you are typing now censors users. It's why this place is a nice place to debate. They are not "fair" to racist dirtbags, for example. Boo hoo for them, good for the rest of us.

That depends. If this was a site that censored advocacy of capitalism because of the stupid-ass argument of Progressive Leftists today that capitalism is inherently racist, then it would not be "good for the rest of us." What is "boo hoo for them, and good for the rest of us" is censoring harassment and threats. Merely censoring "racist opinions" is not in the least "good for us." It's horrible for us. If this website, for example, would not allow a thread to discuss holocaust denial - and to allow deniers to speak freely about their theories - that would not be "good for us."

What Musk is talking about are opinions - not harassment - and news articles, and viewpoints. The Left wants to pretend that this is about whether an avowed Nazi can go around Twitter calling people racial slurs, when really it's about whether Twitter should ****ing censor a legitimate news story because it hurts Joe Biden, and whether they ought to censor people who have opinions about LGBT matters which go against the current Progressive Left line.

Pretty much everyone agrees that violent threats, defamation, targeted harassment (racial and otherwise), are not to be included in freedom of speech. But "misinformation" (e.g. one side thinks masks work, and the other side thinks they don't, or one side thinks Russia was provoked and the other side says it wasn't) is definitely free speech. Holocaust denial -- climate denial - that kind of thing - that is all free speech - saying there are two sexes, and anything JKRowling has thus far said on Twitter - all of that is free speech.

 

[JasperL]

I am all for evidence, pro and con perspecrives, but I am not naive enough to expect that both sides will honorably do that. The Left is just as full of bullshit as the right.

Yes, Twitter is about profit, but that doesn't mean we ought not champion free speech. Also, Twitter is being used, not just for profit, but also to push a political narrative - a pro-Democrat - pro-Left wing political narrative. If the censoring - if the rules -- were applied neutrally and objectively, you would have far fewer complaints about them. The trouble is, like CNN, MSNBC and the NY Times' "mistakes" - they all flow one direction.

Interesting that you don't mention Fox News, or the WSJ. Talk radio is worse, at least in my area - it's 100% right wing. They are being used to "push a political narrative" as well as 100s of other websites and media companies, and you only mention the "liberal" outlets. Curious.

And, I do long for the days of better news commentary. We don't have a Firing Line with William F. Buckley anymore. We have people shouting back and forth. I don't disagree with that. But, that does not excuse journalists from their ridiculous positions that THEY control what we think, and that people shouldn't be allowed to "go wild" on the internet and "gasp" express whatever opinions they want. Look at Mika Brzenski of MSNBC. That scumbag literally said that "it's our job to tell people WHAT TO THINK." Ahhh... no it is not. It's her job to search for the truth and report news and events accurately, as accurately as she can without prejudice. It is OUR JOB, the people, to think what we please. Never forget that, and never give that up.

Should DP allow people to go wild? They don't and yet here you are commenting on this website.

I also don't agree with Mika's comment, and I haven't seen it in context, but in fact her job is not actually to search for the "truth." There is no truth in politics. There are preferences, such as those who want more spending and higher taxes, and those who want lower taxes and less spending, those for wars, those for peace, those for more development, those against, etc. She should be accurate, obviously, but in fact it's fine to be biased, for a station or show to be biased. It's fine to be biased against bigots, even if those bigots sincerely believe their views result in a better world for THEM.

Heck, even the good old days of Walter Cronkite, those broadcasts were biased as hell, but in a way that the public largely accepted. When those broadcasts decided on what to report in that half hour, they left out 1000s of others stories that could create a different narrative entirely about what mattered, THAT DAY. That is "bias" at work.

 

[Airyaman]

Nobody said it did. Twitter is controlled by billionaire hedge funds and Saudi Princes, which the Left wing media is very happy with, but what they aren't happy with is Elon Musk because he's not on the team of the censorious folks, and he wants to let people say what they want.

What are they censoring that you are against? Disinformation? Should a social media outlet be an avenue to spread disinformation?

 

[JasperL]

That depends. If this was a site that censored advocacy of capitalism because of the stupid-ass argument of Progressive Leftists today that capitalism is inherently racist, then it would not be "good for the rest of us." What is "boo hoo for them, and good for the rest of us" is censoring harassment and threats. Merely censoring "racist opinions" is not in the least "good for us." It's horrible for us. If this website, for example, would not allow a thread to discuss holocaust denial - and to allow deniers to speak freely about their theories - that would not be "good for us."

You're entitled to that opinion, of course, but no one else need share it. People of good faith can disagree about the wisdom of treating neo-Nazis and holocaust deniers as serious people with serious positions. My own view is that they should be shunned, given no seat at any table. End of story. You're treating "both sides!!" as the default and I think it's nonsense. For many issues there are not two sides. Anti-semitism is one of those, same with white supremacy. But if you have a website, you do you.

Take churches. Is it horrible for the church, the members, that they don't get a steady diet of atheists and anti-religion trolls in their Sunday service? Does the NRA have a principled duty to present gun banner arguments? Does the WSJ owe its readers a duty to publish anti-corporate democratic socialists and union promoters?

This idea that being "unbiased" is a virtue in and of itself is complete nonsense. Being biased is to have beliefs, standards, principles. What's a virtue is the government not making those calls. It's not a virtue when the public treats every issue as if the neo-Nazis and those against them are both reasonable positions that deserve respect. My own view is HELL NO!

What Musk is talking about are opinions - not harassment - and news articles, and viewpoints. The Left wants to pretend that this is about whether an avowed Nazi can go around Twitter calling people racial slurs, when really it's about whether Twitter should ****ing censor a legitimate news story because it hurts Joe Biden, and whether they ought to censor people who have opinions about LGBT matters which go against the current Progressive Left line.

So we want to pretend it's about censoring political views, but not censoring political views. That's all you're saying. You're fine if Twitter censors neo-Nazis because you're not one, but to a neo-Nazi, how does it look to him? It's entirely possible to be a polite neo-Nazi. In fact if the person is seriously interested in promoting neo-Nazi beliefs, he will be polite, reasonable, refrain from slurs entirely. See David Duke for example. He's a "reasonable" anti-Semite and racist who presents his bigoted views in a calm, reasonable manner. And he's toxic waste, IMO. He and many others KNOW they are 1000 times more dangerous being "reasonable" than slinging around the n-word. That's for idiots. The serious racists never do that, except in unguarded moments. So I'd rather Twitter allow the morons than the David Duke crowd, personally.

And again, you're hung up on the Biden story, but Rush when he was alive, Hannity, Levin, Fox, OANN, and many others unapologetically promote a right wing agenda and you don't care about that. They didn't cover all kinds of things the "left" believed were serious stories. You're presenting a one-sided argument.

Pretty much everyone agrees that violent threats, defamation, targeted harassment (racial and otherwise), are not to be included in freedom of speech. But "misinformation" (e.g. one side thinks masks work, and the other side thinks they don't, or one side thinks Russia was provoked and the other side says it wasn't) is definitely free speech.

All you're doing is insisting your opinion is the "truth" or something. My mother in law is being cared for by Ukrainians. I can tell you they will not see Putin apologists as exercising 'free speech' in her house as her family are being run out of their homes, their friends and relatives killed. And that's fine. Putin apologists cannot be 'censored' by government but it is LEGITIMATE for a private entity to do so. Not just legal - legitimate in principle.

We don't blink at censoring radical Islamists, terrorists, etc, but their views are legitimate views in several countries. Who makes that call? Should Fox present those views as legitimate, invite on pro-terrorists for a round table? Of course not!

 

[Vadinho]

Nazis and communists have freedom of speech, and the ACLU has even fought to protect it, a la National Socialist Party v City of Skokie. Look it up. It'll be an education for you. And Yates v United States upheld the first amendment right of communists to advocate their ideas. As horrible as Nazis and communists are, they both have freedom of speech.

This trend on the Left to poo-poo freedom of speech is disconcerting. Why you folks are coming forward to defend corporate media giants, owned by billionaires, hedge funds and Saudi Princes, but you have some problem with Elon Musk because he advocates MORE FREEDOM on the internet, is really flabbergasting.

I was referring to Nazi speech in Germany and to the restrictions on speech in Russia today. I should have explained myself more clearly. I do understand we have been granted the right to destroy ourselves from within via the free speech amendment and case law. It may be our undoing unfortunately.

 

[Vadinho]

Nonsense. We are certainly entitled to criticize the rules corporations impose.

This is just typical hypocritical Leftist claptrap. You only say "deal with it" relative to corporate rules when you think those rules are in your favor or support your "narratives." And, that's the point - the MSNBC host is speaking about the "rules" she likes and thinks are important. If Twitter opted to do away with all those rules, it would still be a "private company" and she should just "deal with it?" Right? So what is the principled reason a censorious MSNBC host gets to comment on the topic, but for those of us who are Liberal when it comes to freedom of speech and want to minimize corporate censorship, we have to just shut up and "deal with it?"

Oh, I know - it's because you like what Twitter is doing, so **** everyone else, and screw objectivity and fairness of the application of rules. They silenced news stories on the Bidens, not the Trumps, so all good in your book.

That's the kind of people on the Left these days. Censorious douchebags who brook no dissent. Little Maoist Red Guard, ready to shut people up and report them to the authorities. Hardly anything more distasteful these days than the Progressive Left. A wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Then talk a right winger into buying a media company and compete with all these horrid left wingers you seem to think are restricting free speech. The right never stops complaining about media even when they dominate the thing with their incessant pissing and moaning. For over a decade AM radio outside of major cities was completely dominated by right wing media types or Christian radio. In some markets, Rush would be on three or four stations at the same time. Now you want us to force a Twitter or Facebook to publish anything at all? That is the kind of stuff that destroys whatever is left of an objective truth. Sorry but if truth is what serves the nation then truth should be the goal and not just some jerk spewing anti-this or that venom.

 

[JasperL]

Nazis and communists have freedom of speech, and the ACLU has even fought to protect it, a la National Socialist Party v City of Skokie. Look it up. It'll be an education for you. And Yates v United States upheld the first amendment right of communists to advocate their ideas. As horrible as Nazis and communists are, they both have freedom of speech.

This trend on the Left to poo-poo freedom of speech is disconcerting. Why you folks are coming forward to defend corporate media giants, owned by billionaires, hedge funds and Saudi Princes, but you have some problem with Elon Musk because he advocates MORE FREEDOM on the internet, is really flabbergasting.

You are conflating two entirely different issues into one. Those two cases did involve "freedom of speech" in the constitutional sense. The first was the city, i.e. government, restricting speech, and the second was the feds criminalizing speech. Texas trying to compel speech on social media is right in that wheelhouse, which is why the law will never go into effect. These all involve the state regulating speech in some way, or compelling speech - different side of the same coin.

That's different than Twitter, a non-governmental actor, moderating their website, or this place doing it, or you censoring views in your kitchen, or NRA being biased against gun banners, your church being biased against atheists, or other religions, etc.....

FWIW, I do not care what Twitter does, or what Musk does if he takes over the company. It's not the point. What is the point are arguments like yours that are wrong on the law and on the principle. I don't know where you stand on anti-CRT legislation, but you're in the same bed with those who love that, actual infringements on free speech dictated by government fiat, versus moderation policies on Twitter or Facebook, which are not.

 

[JasperL]

That isn't what they're in favor of. If Musk bought it, social media platforms would still be "able" to regulate speech. What they are objecting to is the notion that a Musk owned Twitter would instead CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO. That's a big difference, dontcha think?

That's false as stated. Twitter under Musk would regulate speech and delete perhaps millions of tweets per day, or else it's a sewer. What he might do is regulate it differently. But that's the point - regulating speech is simply not the issue. If you object to how, say that. It's fine to disagree, and lots of people banned from DP I'm sure believe the mods are unfair autocrats, etc.

They WANT the regulation (of others) because they believe - as the corporate media -- that they control the narrative, and they should control the narrative. They worry that if Musk takes over Twitter, they won't anymore.

They (right wingers) believe the same thing. Do you think if George Soros took over Fox nothing would change? Do you think current Fox viewers would be supportive of that because FREE SPEECH? Are Hannity and Carlson not trying to control the narrative?

 

[LouC]

I did. You'd have to watch the video.

Ah. So you produced the video? Cool!

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Ah. So you produced the video? Cool!

Jesus Christ. For the love of god, the ****ing information is in the god damn video. What the ****?

 

[JasperL]

1) Every right wing thread about free speech is a clinic in right wingers not understanding how free speech works.

2) Even by his own standards, Elon is not a "free speech" hero as he routinely punishes customers and employees for engaging in speech HE doesn't like.

3) Content moderation on the part of private actors, is exactly the marketplace of ideas filtering out abhorrent speech like it's supposed to.

4) If you want your free speech paradise there's always 8chan, nobody's stopping you from going there.

Amen. Short but to the point.

 

[Vadinho]

ok, I watched the first minute of Dore's video and turned it off. He said keeping Trump off Twitter was fascist. No. Its called being responsible and keeping a madman from instigating a civil friggin war with his nonstop lies and bull.

 

[LouC]

Well, if you don't want to watch the video, absent compelling evidence, then why comment on a thread about which you choose to remain pig ignorant?

I love how you establish, or try to establish a totally illogical argument that my and others, obviously, recalcitrance and refusal to watch your linked video somehow (falsely) leaves us "pig ignorant" on the topic of alleged and or real free speech hate via the MEDIA.

But hey, I bet you really enjoyed getting to use the terminology, "pig ignorant" not that there is any evidence from you that pigs are somehow bastions of ignorance.

He? The host of the video - Socialist Jimmy Dore.

Who is that? I have never heard of him? What are his credentials such as to make him some supposed expert on his fellow MEDIA so that I, or anyone else, should take any stock in what he might purport to know in empirical form about MEDIA HATE of FREE SPEECH?

You just said I didn't offer any commentary, but then you accused me of "presenting an interpretation?"

That really isn't what I said.

This is: "Well why didn't you provide evidence of that with your own interpretation to show their alleged FREE SPEECH HATE?"

To belabor the point, I asked why, in regards the OP and I had hoped it would be understood, the unnamed MSNB folks in the video and their comments, you did not provide what they had actually said that you believe is evidence of their hate for free speech and why you feel that way.

Rather than in essence merely saying "ditto" to what the socialist Jimmy Dore said about someone else.

No, I didn't.

You are right. You did not put yourself into the OP in any useful or substantial manner.

I posted the video so people could watch it for themselves and determine if they agree or disagree with the points made, and why.

What about folks who wish to participate here who can't or do not wish to link to some socialists website?

I didn't want to summarize or "interpret" it, because then people like you would claim that I misrepresented it, so I didn't make any representations, other than to state the thesis of the video.

Nice to know you assume the worst in people, particularly, including me.
Contrary to the old saw, your incorrect assumption of me only makes an ass of one, and in this case that one is not me.

Present clips in full context?

Yes. You had no problem posting, for our supposed edification, a more than 12 minute video of Jimmy and friends castigating anonymous MSNBC folks for what they supposedly said. I can't believe the actual length of the commentary by them, in content and context, would have proven any more lengthy?

But one note to make, Jimmy doesn't start his castigating by making the claim, as you did with the thread title, that the MEDIA is in HATE of FREE SPEECH, no, in the few seconds it originally took me to see how long the video was Jimmy made the declarative statement that the MEDIA were AFRAID of FREE SPEECH.

There is a large difference between the two points.

So it is seemingly obvious the thread title is all you and what you believe which is seemingly different from Mr. Dore's stance?

If you had watched the video, you will see that they presented the entirety of context. :You can decide for yourself. You just choose not to watch it.

Well if Jimmy can get those clips I am certain you could and then you could digress about them in your own voice and we could have a more legitimately real discussion.

Nobody presented you with diced tomatoes, and you'd know that if you watched the video, which you say you did not.

Of course you did. You just seem to not understand that you did.

So, if you have nothing to say on the topic, then your non-point is noted.

It is blatantly obvious I have plenty to say on the topic and I do thank you for providing another opportunity to do so, even as sliced and diced and poorly processed as it was.

 

[LouC]

ok, I watched the first minute of Dore's video and turned it off. He said keeping Trump off Twitter was fascist. No. Its called being responsible and keeping a madman from instigating a civil friggin war with his nonstop lies and bull.

Now see, the OP made no mention that there would be such useless Right Wing loving BS forced upon me if I watched that video!

Yet they will wonder why I don't jump into the water without any clue how deep or what dangers lie hidden beneath the surface!!!

 

[MrNiceGuy]

ok, I watched the first minute of Dore's video and turned it off. He said keeping Trump off Twitter was fascist. No. Its called being responsible and keeping a madman from instigating a civil friggin war with his nonstop lies and bull.

And that's typical ridiculous Leftwing myopic bullshit. He was the President of the US.. And he was silenced so that he would not be reelected. That's why.

And it seems the only wars you object to are the ones you folks imagine Trump might cause. You have no objection to the constant warmongering by the mainstream establishment in both parties - we've been at war - Hillary Clinton, Biden and Obama started wars in Syria, Libya and Yemen. They started what amount to war crimes there. Bush the Younger started the Iraq War. All of these wars were based on lies, and the lies are from the mainstream media and the vaunted "intelligence community."

Being responsible? That's a ****ing joke. Like it's responsible for media and social media and the intelligence community to conspire to silence a story that would be negative to Joe ****ing Biden? Your "responsible" folks said we couldn't publish the laptop story because lying CIA and NSA spooks said it looked like Russian disinformation (when they hadn't seen any of the information) - and talking about the emails was said to be disinformation which needed to be censored from Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. The media, and social media, was censoring legitimate information about Covid, and just outright deemed all discussion of treatments not expressly approved by the State (known proven liars) or the corporate media (also known proven liars) just because they thought that we had to focus on vaccines. As soon as masks were deemed public policy by the government (known proven disseminator of false information), then it became "misinformation" to discuss studies and rationale which contradicted that recommendation.

That's not "responsibility" - that's ceding the authority of the State and its corporate media folks the power to declare themselves a clearinghouse of truth, which they aren't. Too many times we've seen CNN and the rest of the usual suspects peddling what is later discovered to be false information. They do not have the capacity or the moral authority to tell us what opinions and viewpoints we can and cannot hear. They have no such lawful power. To grant it to them is the height of folly and it is caving in to authoritarianism.

 

[Vadinho]

Now see, the OP made no mention that there would be such useless Right Wing loving BS forced upon me if I watched that video!

Yet they will wonder why I don't jump into the water without any clue how deep or what dangers lie hidden beneath the surface!!!

I looked into this Dore character and he is pretty full of himself ala Joe Rogan. The guy says his is a liberal but says he is an equal opportunity truth teller. Fine with me but using his radio show as a source of truth telling is no different than any of us claiming we alone are truth tellers on any subject we write about. Of course each of us believes we are telling the truth but the truth itself can be hard to find.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Now see, the OP made no mention that there would be such useless Right Wing loving BS forced upon me if I watched that video!

Yet they will wonder why I don't jump into the water without any clue how deep or what dangers lie hidden beneath the surface!!!

There wasn't any right wing loving BS in the video. Jimmy Dore is an avowed, unapologetic socialism who hated Trump and all Republicans. This is not about whether one liked or hated Trump. ****. Why is it that so few Democrats can understand that there are people on both sides of the spectrum who actually want the people they oppose the most to still be able to speak and publish the same as everyone else? Something happened to Democrats - they've gone nuts.

"Dangers." LOL. Listen to yourself. You folks think it's "dangerous" to listen to something that might not be in line with your current opinon.

Christ on a bicycle....

 

[LouC]

Jesus Christ. For the love of god, the ****ing information is in the god damn video. What the ****?

Now that attitude will certainly not further civil discussion.

 

[Vadinho]

And that's typical ridiculous Leftwing myopic bullshit. He was the President of the US.. And he was silenced so that he would not be reelected. That's why.

And it seems the only wars you object to are the ones you folks imagine Trump might cause. You have no objection to the constant warmongering by the mainstream establishment in both parties - we've been at war - Hillary Clinton, Biden and Obama started wars in Syria, Libya and Yemen. They started what amount to war crimes there. Bush the Younger started the Iraq War. All of these wars were based on lies, and the lies are from the mainstream media and the vaunted "intelligence community."

Being responsible? That's a ****ing joke. Like it's responsible for media and social media and the intelligence community to conspire to silence a story that would be negative to Joe ****ing Biden? Your "responsible" folks said we couldn't publish the laptop story because lying CIA and NSA spooks said it looked like Russian disinformation (when they hadn't seen any of the information) - and talking about the emails was said to be disinformation which needed to be censored from Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. The media, and social media, was censoring legitimate information about Covid, and just outright deemed all discussion of treatments not expressly approved by the State (known proven liars) or the corporate media (also known proven liars) just because they thought that we had to focus on vaccines. As soon as masks were deemed public policy by the government (known proven disseminator of false information), then it became "misinformation" to discuss studies and rationale which contradicted that recommendation.

That's not "responsibility" - that's ceding the authority of the State and its corporate media folks the power to declare themselves a clearinghouse of truth, which they aren't. Too many times we've seen CNN and the rest of the usual suspects peddling what is later discovered to be false information. They do not have the capacity or the moral authority to tell us what opinions and viewpoints we can and cannot hear. They have no such lawful power. To grant it to them is the height of folly and it is caving in to authoritarianism.

Trump can jump in the lake. He has no right at all to be a voice on these platforms

 

[LouC]

Trump can jump in the lake. He has no right at all to be a voice on these platforms

But...But...But...Hunter Biden's Laptop!!!

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Trump can jump in the lake. He has no right at all to be a voice on these platforms

Whether he can go jump in a lake has nothing to do with having a voice - everyone, including Joe Biden, the complete dementia-addled idiot that is our current President, and cackling Kamala who has the brains of a five year old, and the entire scummy Democrat regime, can jump in a lake, along with Donald Trump. A lot of people need to jump in a lake. So what? If the only people who were allowed to speak were those that hardly anyone thought should jump in a lake, it would be a pretty quite Twitter.

That's really what drove Democrats batshit insane. Donald Trump. He's the Devil himself, and Democrats would cut down every law in the land to get at the Devil.



The Democrats are Roper in A Man for All Seasons.