Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????
dave23 said:
Were Hillary president, you'd really trust her adminstration to secure free and open communication?
FYI, libel is real. Sandy Hook families having to move multiple times because of death threats is real. You are defending Jones' right to lie about to them and to add to their horror.
The things you choose to defend gets curiouser and curiouser.
I would not allow Jones to do that. I despise the guy. I just care about free speech and I worry that it is a slippery slope. You should acknowledge that.
I would suspend and delete any user who starts spreading similar statements Jones is using in regards to Sandy Hook.
Can you do something similar to people who post videos by Jimmy Dore?
nan said:
dave23 said:I would not allow Jones to do that. I despise the guy. I just care about free speech and I worry that it is a slippery slope. You should acknowledge that.
Were Hillary president, you'd really trust her adminstration to secure free and open communication?
FYI, libel is real. Sandy Hook families having to move multiple times because of death threats is real. You are defending Jones' right to lie about to them and to add to their horror.
The things you choose to defend gets curiouser and curiouser.
No one suggested that First Amendment issues aren't difficult. But my example of what Jones has said is but one of myraid ugliness and decidedly real libel.
dave23 said:
nan said:No one suggested that First Amendment issues aren't difficult. But my example of what Jones has said is but one of myraid ugliness and decidedly real libel.
dave23 said:I would not allow Jones to do that. I despise the guy. I just care about free speech and I worry that it is a slippery slope. You should acknowledge that.
Were Hillary president, you'd really trust her adminstration to secure free and open communication?
FYI, libel is real. Sandy Hook families having to move multiple times because of death threats is real. You are defending Jones' right to lie about to them and to add to their horror.
The things you choose to defend gets curiouser and curiouser.
Well, the posts related to Sandy Hook can be taken down without banning him outright. The thing is when he got banned, his popularity on his app skyrocketed. And now he can play victim. I hate think of that smarmy sewer rat pretending to be the hurt one.
Our first amendment is probably way too simplistic to be of any good anymore. Then again, our Constitution falls under that category too.
Most countries seem to get by very well with more restrictive approaches to free speech. Maybe we should follow their examples?
And Alex Jones deserves no freaking protection at all. He admitted during his divorce (custody?) proceedings that his show is all B.S. Why do we need to protect admitted B.S.? Are we not mature enough to censor him him without also falling under the pressure to censor the NY Times? Anyway, the slippery slope war has long been lost, since the Supreme Court now can use free speech arguments to allow unlimited secret political donations and to also suppress unions.
That's the damn slippery slope you should be worried about, not crushing that cockroach Alex Jones.
Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.
sbenois said:
nan said:
Not sure why they said "only one-third higher" than the amount Bernie got since these are the amounts on Sbenois's link." Hillary $87,593, Bernie $32,237
Clinton, Hillary (D) Pres $87,593 McCain, John (R-AZ) Senate $45,575 Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $41,762 Visclosky, Pete (D-IN) House $34,100 Trump, Donald (R) Pres $33,588 Sanders, Bernie (D-VT) Senate $32,237
Who the hell is Pete Visclosky?
nan said:
dave23 said:Well, the posts related to Sandy Hook can be taken down without banning him outright. The thing is when he got banned, his popularity on his app skyrocketed. And now he can play victim. I hate think of that smarmy sewer rat pretending to be the hurt one.
nan said:No one suggested that First Amendment issues aren't difficult. But my example of what Jones has said is but one of myraid ugliness and decidedly real libel.
dave23 said:I would not allow Jones to do that. I despise the guy. I just care about free speech and I worry that it is a slippery slope. You should acknowledge that.
Were Hillary president, you'd really trust her adminstration to secure free and open communication?
FYI, libel is real. Sandy Hook families having to move multiple times because of death threats is real. You are defending Jones' right to lie about to them and to add to their horror.
The things you choose to defend gets curiouser and curiouser.
Exactly. A good argument against treating Facebook as a utility.
nan said:
Well, the posts related to Sandy Hook can be taken down without banning him outright. The thing is when he got banned, his popularity on his app skyrocketed. And now he can play victim. I hate think of that smarmy sewer rat pretending to be the hurt one.
The problem with this approach to enforcement is that once libelous statements are out there, the damage is already done to the people they hurt. Better to add deterrents as well, which is where libel laws and posting terms and conditions, including potential bans, come in. (Jones’s restrictions on his Infowars site, for instance, explain that “all civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.”)
When it comes to censorship, be careful what you wish for. Internet companies turn to militaristic think tanks for guidance on who to censor. Are these the people we want policing our content? In this video, Max Blumenthal identifies "the merger of the national security state and Silicon Valley" and makes a case for these outlets to be a public utility. He also discusses Alex Jones, whose removal evidently caused Chris Murphy (D) to cheer about and declare that others should join him, without naming any. Blumenthal personally knows what he is talking about because, as a critic of Israel, he has himself been targeted for censorship. Mate brings on another guest and they discuss how a page called "Venezuela Analysis" was taken down for violating terms, without explanation. It was taken down during a time of political turmoil when their perspective was much needed. The slippery slope is for real and legitimate voices are already being suppressed.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:The problem with this approach to enforcement is that once libelous statements are out there, the damage is already done to the people they hurt. Better to add deterrents as well, which is where libel laws and posting terms and conditions, including potential bans, come in. (Jones’s restrictions on his Infowars site, for instance, explain that “all civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.”)
Well, the posts related to Sandy Hook can be taken down without banning him outright. The thing is when he got banned, his popularity on his app skyrocketed. And now he can play victim. I hate think of that smarmy sewer rat pretending to be the hurt one.
One of the problem with "violating the rules" is that the rules are not clear. In the case of Jones, he is so offensive that we all assume he broke the rules, but I'm not sure exactly what rule he broke. In the case mentioned in the video I posted above, the owner of a banned site called "Venezulela Analysis" was unable to figure out how he had violated the rules. He sent in an email and no explanation was given, but his site was put back up. The site was taken down right when the content was most needed. What about having clearer rules and a process to determine what violates them? Right now, you can just be taken down with no resource other than the ability to send an email that never gets answered.
drummerboy said:
Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.
Fox News is the same as CNN and MSNBC. They are just different flavors of the same corporate propaganda. Be careful what you wish for, although those sites will never come down, as they already conform to manufactured consent regulations. They mostly ignore real problems and focus on Russiagate or immigrants or whatever else not related to wealth inequality or a negative view of war. They are not as different as you think. They are filled with ex-generals and ex-CIA talking head experts (the establishment, or CIA)--like John Brennan. No one on the left should admire John Brennon and I've seen him quoted on MOL as a voice of reason by people who think of themselves as progressive. I know you probably think of CNN and MSNBC as "the Resistance" but it's not. Fox news, because they hate liberals so much, will bring in real progressive voices such as Glen Greenwald and Garland Nixon to counter their conservative experts and the discussions are much better when they do that because of the strong differences. So, sometimes FOX is better than MSNBC or CNN, because those outlets almost never allow real Progressives on. But, no one should listen to FOX, MSNBC or CNN as their only source of news.
nan said:
drummerboy said:Fox News is the same as CNN and MSNBC. ...
Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.
There is never any need to read the body of any paragraph that begins with that sentence.
drummerboy said:
nan said:There is never any need to read the body of any paragraph that begins with that sentence.
drummerboy said:Fox News is the same as CNN and MSNBC. ...
Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.
Right, are you still getting all of your news from CNN? I'm hoping you have improved.
nan said:
drummerboy said:Fox News is the same as CNN and MSNBC. They are just different flavors of the same corporate propaganda. Be careful what you wish for, although those sites will never come down, as they already conform to manufactured consent regulations. They mostly ignore real problems and focus on Russiagate or immigrants or whatever else not related to wealth inequality or a negative view of war. They are not as different as you think. They are filled with ex-generals and ex-CIA talking head experts (the establishment, or CIA)--like John Brennan. No one on the left should admire John Brennon and I've seen him quoted on MOL as a voice of reason by people who think of themselves as progressive. I know you probably think of CNN and MSNBC as "the Resistance" but it's not. Fox news, because they hate liberals so much, will bring in real progressive voices such as Glen Greenwald and Garland Nixon to counter their conservative experts and the discussions are much better when they do that because of the strong differences. So, sometimes FOX is better than MSNBC or CNN, because those outlets almost never allow real Progressives on. But, no one should listen to FOX, MSNBC or CNN as their only source of news.
Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.
Greenwald hates the Democrats. He's not there to counter conservative experts. He's there to give FOX some legitimacy among FOX critics.
nan said:
drummerboy said:Right, are you still getting all of your news from CNN? I'm hoping you have improved.
nan said:There is never any need to read the body of any paragraph that begins with that sentence.
drummerboy said:Fox News is the same as CNN and MSNBC. ...
Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.
As usual, you still get the CNN thing wrong.
Like most everything else.
LOST said:
Who the hell is Pete Visclosky?
Guess I have to answer my own question. Believe it or not he is a leader of something called The Steel Caucus.
https://visclosky.house.gov/issues/congressional-steel-caucus
yahooyahoo said:
nan said:Greenwald hates the Democrats. He's not there to counter conservative experts. He's there to give FOX some legitimacy among FOX critics.
drummerboy said:Fox News is the same as CNN and MSNBC. They are just different flavors of the same corporate propaganda. Be careful what you wish for, although those sites will never come down, as they already conform to manufactured consent regulations. They mostly ignore real problems and focus on Russiagate or immigrants or whatever else not related to wealth inequality or a negative view of war. They are not as different as you think. They are filled with ex-generals and ex-CIA talking head experts (the establishment, or CIA)--like John Brennan. No one on the left should admire John Brennon and I've seen him quoted on MOL as a voice of reason by people who think of themselves as progressive. I know you probably think of CNN and MSNBC as "the Resistance" but it's not. Fox news, because they hate liberals so much, will bring in real progressive voices such as Glen Greenwald and Garland Nixon to counter their conservative experts and the discussions are much better when they do that because of the strong differences. So, sometimes FOX is better than MSNBC or CNN, because those outlets almost never allow real Progressives on. But, no one should listen to FOX, MSNBC or CNN as their only source of news.
Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.
He's not there to support any party. He is there to talk truthfully, using facts and analysis, about current events. While drummerboy, in his post above, says FOX should be censored like Alex Jones, he would probably like it if no one would hear the excellent segment below. Cause you will not hear this on CNN or MSNBC and you should (cause it shows the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans). And before you start saying I like FOX News--I don't like FOX, CNN or MSNBC, but even a broken clock is right twice a day--and sometimes MSM does real journalism as in the clip below:
I lucked out. When I clicked the video it said "This video is unavailable."
shucks, I missed the chance to see Glenn Greenwald. I'll be a lesser man for that.
drummerboy said:
I lucked out. When I clicked the video it said "This video is unavailable."
shucks, I missed the chance to see Glenn Greenwald. I'll be a lesser man for that.
It works for me, but you can also do this:
Go to YouTube and google something like Glen Greenwald + "Inside the Rules of Spying" + Fox
Facebook's censorship goes beyond Alex Jones:
Twitter hasn't banned Alex Jones, but has banned State Dept whistleblower, antiwar libertarian Peter Van Buren (at 2:30)
paulsurovell said:
Facebook's censorship goes beyond Alex Jones:
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/TeleSUR-English-Removed-From-Facebook-for-the-Second-Time-20180813-0009.html
Twitter hasn't banned Alex Jones, but has banned State Dept whistleblower, antiwar libertarian Peter Van Buren (at 2:30)
"The neocon war mongers never get banned."
paulsurovell said:
Twitter bans atheist for obvious joke:
He talks about libel and hate speech and feels that those can be removed without going down the slippery slope of banning. Banning always begins with the worst examples like Alex Jones, but then it keeps on going and going.
Don't worry, guys. There are literally tens of thousands of people still allowed to threaten women, spread libel and monger conspiratorial fear across social media.
"A Florida woman who made death threats against a parent whose child was killed in the Sandy Hook massacre — because she believed the mass shooting was a hoax — was sentenced to prison on Wednesday, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney announced.
According to court records, Richards sent voicemail and email threats on or around Jan. 10, 2016, saying things such as “you gonna die, death is coming to you real soon” and “LOOK BEHIND YOU IT IS DEATH.”
Richards was motivated by the belief that the shooting never occurred and a story she saw online on a conspiracy theory website touting the unsubstantiated claim that the incident was a hoax, prosecutors said in court documents."
Right, as I said, they start with the worst examples like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook deniers. Then they move on and on. In the Real New video I posted above, a page called Venezuela Analysis was taken down. They were providing non-establishment views about that country during a political crisis.
Meanwhile, back to the matter at hand. Assange remains in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, although with no access to the internet or telephones or any other means of communications save through his lawyers. The US Senate Intelligence Committee has sent a letter to the Assange at the embassy requesting him to testify on the release of emails during the 2016 campaign.
""As part of that inquiry, the Committee requests that you make yourself available for a closed interview with bipartisan Committee staff at a mutually agreeable time and location," the committee wrote, according to a letter posted to Twitter by Wikileaks."
I am wondering why the Ecuadoreans have not followed through on their threat to boot Assange yet.
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
Nan, the internets is this big ole huge wide thingy that allows even people like you to go to this link and see what Alex Jones is spouting today:
https://www.infowars.com/
So I won't be joining you in calling this censorship (it's not) or helping you to publicize just how awful it is that companies want to ensure that their platforms are not used to facilitate hate.
I would, however, LOVE IT if we could somehow get the Jimmy Dore show cancelled and removed from the whole big ole internets so that we could be spared the 40 posts a week in which you embed his awful show.