Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Free speech? What is that Grandpa?

Journal by Runaway1956

"Hush child! Free speech is the reason you grew up without a grandma or your mommy or daddy! They all went to the Utah camps for demonstrating against the Democrat Party!"

https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1520790249957429248?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/apr/28/dhs-created-disinformation-governance-team-police-/

https://www.sott.net/article/467375-Panicked-CNN-guest-wonders-how-we-re-going-to-control-the-channels-of-communications-in-this-country

https://ijr.com/dhs-dismisses-concerns-disinformation-board-leader/

Geeez, people, too bad we didn't have a disinformation board in the McCarthy days, huh? All those commies and socialists could have been put into concentration camps. Those radical black activists could have joined them. All the gay activists, a bunch of feminists, the free sex cultist hippies, and all the druggies. Don't forget the illegal aliens!!

Free speech? What is that Grandpa? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 56 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday May 02 2022, @11:23PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 02 2022, @11:23PM (#1241649) Journal
    I also have three journals (here [soylentnews.org], here [soylentnews.org], and here [soylentnews.org]) where the authors advocate trampling freedom of speech for bizarrely vague and petty reasons. In each case, it's by someone who should know better (journalists or law professors). So not only do I agree with Runaway on this issue, I have years of evidence for that support and why I do it.

    There is a real problem here. Zurawik isn't the only authoritative Chicken Little advocating ending US freedom of speech. But Runaway did us a great service by finding someone so blindingly hypocritical about it. I wonder if the rest of my list of problems above have done the same about face, gloating when it was Trump subject to their whims and whining when the tables turned with Musk's buyout.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Puffin on Tuesday May 03 2022, @02:31AM (5 children)

    by Puffin (17060) on Tuesday May 03 2022, @02:31AM (#1241732)

    That's very nice, khallow. What "whims" are you talking about?

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 04 2022, @06:18AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2022, @06:18AM (#1242138) Journal

      What "whims" are you talking about?

      Let's see...

      David Zurawik on CNN in Runaway's linked story. Jack Goldsmith and Andrew Keane Woods in The Atlantic in my first link. Andrew Marantz in New York Times in my second link. Richard Stengel in the Washington Post in my third link.

      • (Score: 1) by Puffin on Wednesday May 04 2022, @07:52AM (3 children)

        by Puffin (17060) on Wednesday May 04 2022, @07:52AM (#1242148)

        But, what "whims"? Seems like those Gentlemen are grounding their positions on fairly substantial legal principles, and not at all on the whims of fickle partisan opinion, like you are, khallow. So, what whims are you complaining about? I ask again.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 04 2022, @12:54PM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2022, @12:54PM (#1242182) Journal

          fairly substantial legal principles

          Like what? I'm not going to bother reading through what I've already written on the matter - which honestly already rebuts your assertion, but what would you be referring to that I've somehow missed for years?

          On the present case, Zurawik's outburst during the CNN show above, he cites no such substantial legal principle. It was just Musk and Zuckerberg are here to make money - not serve whatever higher cause he implied needed serving, Trump is bad, and Russians wouldn't have been able to steal the 2016 election for Trump, if it weren't for Zuckerberg taking his Ruble payments. And then made an empty appeal that we needed controls on this without specifying what form that would take.

          • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2022, @08:27AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2022, @08:27AM (#1242953)

            Like what? I'm not going to bother reading through what I've already written on the matter

            Finally! Something I can wholefartedly agree with khallow on! I, as well, will not bother reading through what you have posted, in the past, or in the future. Better for all concerned.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 04 2022, @12:57PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 04 2022, @12:57PM (#1242183) Journal
          Also, notice how these people were all able to express their uninformed and rather pathological (since harmful to the purpose of the jobs they hold, whether journalist or lawyer) opinions in high profile media outlets. I wouldn't care half so much, if they were doing it just on Twitter as just a personal opinion where they can be instantly corrected and no weight given those opinions by the source.