How can it be "unlawful" to protest at "sites"? Obviously, certain conduct undertaken in advance of a protest -- violence, obstruction, intimidation -- can be unlawful. But how can protest itself be deemed inherently unlawful as is being done here?
Yet again we find that the people in the west who most vocally and flamboyantly claim they're fighting fascism are the ones who seize and wield the defining weapons of fascists: censorship, punishment without due process, criminalizing of protests, imprisoning journalists.
This is absolutely true. And it would be the same reaction if Trudeau were doing this against protesters whose ideology western elites liked instead of hated:
Western liberalism doesn't really believe in the right of dissent for their adversaries. Obviously they won't say that explicitly -- not even the most extreme tyrants admit explicitly that they don't believe in the right of dissent -- but their actions increasingly reflect this.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Uau! Era tão raro que as pessoas durante o debate sobre a liberdade de expressão tivessem a capacidade ou a honestidade de compreender esse ponto básico sobre meu argumento que, ouvir isso de uma pessoa que discorda de mim era como encontrar água depois de semanas no deserto:
Aqui está o vídeo que ele citou onde expliquei meu raciocínio: que dar o poder de censura ao estado é *mais provável levar ao fascismo. Em quase 20 anos de jornalismo, nunca tive um argumento distorcido como o que aconteceu há 2 semanas no Brasil:
E uma última vez: a liberdade de expressão que defendo *não* é só um valor americano (muitos nos EUA a rejeitam e há muito defendem a censura). Vem do esquerdismo internacional e da tradição intelectual judaica, tornando ainda mais repelente ser chamado de nazista por defendê-lo.
They're not even hiding it this time. The vast, vast majority of "reporting" from corporate media outlets on Russia/Ukraine consists of nothing other than "anonymous intelligence officials tell us..." No verification, questioning or doubt. They just go and prosthelytize as told.
In these two tweets, @juliaioffe -- long one of the most fanatical and deranged Russiagaters -- comes out and explicitly says *not only* that the US media is being used to spread propaganda by the US Govt about Ukraine but that it's noble that they're being used this way.
If the corporate media had any minimal standards of ethics or even dignity, this would cause an immediate expulsion of Ioffe from any venues of credibility, but most of them not only know that it's true but also see it as virtuous. As with Trump, all is justified to stop Putin.
Absolutely unbelievable: the excuse Twitter used to censor the pre-election Hunter Biden reporting was its policy on prohibiting use of "hacked" material. That was a lie: nothing was hacked.
This donor information was hacked, and Twitter is allowing full disclosure of all names.
In the last six years, a major function of large media corporations is to elevate ordinary people from the privacy and obscurity they choose into the spotlight for the crime of ideological wrongness. That's what the WPost is doing:
Remember one of CNN's lowest and most pathetic moments: they sent *a camera crew* to the Florida home of an older woman for unwittingly posting pro-Trump events on FB CNN claimed were organized by Russians. This is why the media is so hated. Look at this:
The Special Counsel investigating wrongdoing that led to Russiagate, John Durham, filed a document accusing the Clinton campaign of paying tech operatives to spy on Trump campaign, then Admin, servers. See if you can find liberal outlets covering this.
Durham's filing is here. The accusations shouldn't be taken as truth yet. He says he will prove them at trial. But the way liberal outlets completely ignore this shows the bubble in which liberals live: they just have no idea about any of this:
This is part of the criminal case against Hillary's lawyer, Michael Sussman. He fed FBI, then CIA, the fabricated Alfa Bank story, and is accused of lying when telling FBI he wasn't representing any client. Question is whether this is leading to a broader conspiracy case.
Only the US corporate media could take the person in this video, Joe Rogan, and claim he's a far-right figure.
It happens in part because most of Rogan's critics never watch his show, but also because the media purposely lies and uses "far-right" to malign everyone they dislike.
The media moronically calls Rogan "right-wing" because this is their only strategy for combatting the explosive growth of independent media taking their audience.
If they can convince people that everyone independent of them is "far-right," at least liberals will be captive.
In other words:
"Hey, all you guys who supported Bernie Sanders and have positions far to the left on key issues than we could dream of having: every time we use your name, we'll call you 'right-wing' because we have to make liberals stay loyal to us."