Vladimir Putin Signs Sweeping Internet-Censorship Bills (arstechnica.com)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed two censorship bills into law Monday. One bans "fake news" while the other makes it illegal to insult public officials. Ars Technica reports on the details: Under one bill, individuals can face fines and jail time if they publish material online that shows a "clear disrespect for society, the state, the official state symbols of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and bodies exercising state power." Insults against Putin himself can be punished under the law, The Moscow Times reports. Punishments can be as high as 300,000 rubles ($4,700) and 15 days in jail.

A second bill subjects sites publishing "unreliable socially significant information" to fines as high as 1.5 million rubles ($23,000). [T]he Russian government has "essentially unconstrained authority to determine that any speech is unacceptable. One consequence may be to make it nearly impossible for individuals or groups to call for public protest activity against any action taken by the state," [analyst Matthew Rojansky told the Post]

Comments

To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

This is to prevent discourse on his attempts to maintain power beyond his constitutional term, whether by the Belarus union option or other means.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Narcocide]

Well yea, but it will also make it illegal to claim the Earth is flat so... win some, lose some, am I right?

Re:To prevent discourse

[JaredOfEuropa]

Win some, lose a lot.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if the people in charge agree that the world is not flat.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Tomahawk]

I suppose that depends on what the Russian Government defines as "fake news"...

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Lose everything. There might eventually be some reason for the government to declare that the Earth being round is fake news. Hell, Trump might tweet that sooner or later.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yea, but it will also make it illegal to claim the Earth is flat so... win some, lose some, am I right?

Unless Putin believes the Earth is flat.

That would be fun.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Partly, but that's only a small part of the bigger picture. It's primarily because he knows there's a storm coming, as soon as Trump is gone and Brexit isn't distracting every moment of British political discourse anymore, the genie he let out of the bottle of political interference is going to cause serious blowback in Russia when it's used back against them in kind.

This threat is already prevalent for him in some ways given that he tried the same tactic to get Le Penn in power in France, but didn't count on Macron turning up as a force of nature capable of capturing votes better than his propaganda campaigns ever could. I have no doubt French security services are already looking at ways to turn the tables under Macron's leadership therefore, given Macron himself was personally targeted by Putin. As soon as other big boys like America and the UK come on board, if their security services aren't already in spite of their inept national governance, Russia, is, frankly, fucked.

So the only thing Putin can do is try and enact laws and powers to control and shut down the internet to try and prevent that, but the irony is that in doing so he's only pissing off his own citizens even more and speeding up his inevitable demise.

And demise in Russia doesn't merely mean a new president, it means being knocked off with nuclear or biological weapons, it's really a case of live by the sword, die by the sword, and this maneuver by Putin is a desperate attempt to try and prevent the blowback from his actions; his policy of meddling could only realistically have worked if it had worked everywhere; but he was beaten in France, he was held back in Germany, and his candidate in the US unfortunately was stupid enough to make the security services his enemy by attacking them, so have managed to remain sufficiently independent as to not be neutralised by the effects of Putin's man in the whitehouse. Even Brexit is now beginning to falter despite once having looked inevitable and despite still seeing significant Russian funding through campaigns such as this that, unlike counter-campaigns such as Best for Britain, are not registered with the electoral commission so as to mask their funding source:

https://www.facebook.com/ads/l...

Mark my words, within the next 10 years Putin is done, and liberalism will return to the West as the natural leaning of human progress. The far-right (I refuse to submit to it's poor attempt at rebranding and call it alt-right) is showing it's true colours as a far bigger terrorist threat to Western society now than even ISIS and will be dealt with appropriately. The tables are turning and this act by Putin is a significant act of desperation in realisation of the fact that he's poked the lion one too many times and a shit storm is brewing for him.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Narcocide]

Yea, because then if they try to Nuke the U.S., the missiles will land in the middle of the Pacific.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is russian government is kind of fake

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the same stuff the Democrats do: Anything that threatens their narratives.

Men can be women. The science is settled.

The world will end in 12 years. The science is settled.

Black males commit 17 times more murders than white men because they are policed more. The science is settled.

Islam is a religion of peace, and any adherent who commits atrocities is magically not a Muslim. The science is settled.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the sentiment. However, Russia has one advantage the West doesn't: The ability to send propaganda in and dink with elections as they see fit. The only reason Le Penn isn't in charge is because he was able to generate enough disinformation to keep the nation-state intel people at bay.

Here in the US, that isn't going to happen. Private companies don't care about security, because it has no ROI. So, US interests will continue to get breached, elections tampered with, and more candidates chosen by Russia or China elected. In fact, just the fear of a cyber reprisal makes most US businesses condone Russian and Chinese actions since they fear being utterly destroyed at a press of a button.

I don't think liberalism is coming to the West anytime soon. The polarization is far too great, and the Merkel Doctrine has moved millions of hostiles into Europe, turning the EU immigrant hostile, and moving the sub-continent away from the left.

In fact, we are seeing the opposite of that. The EU now requires US citizens to get visas, something completely unheard of in history. These are not things that can be easily mended, and are hard diplomatic splits. France even did a test missile launch, which is unheard of.

I think we are just seeing the beginning of a hard right turn globally.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

This is to prevent discourse on his attempts to maintain power beyond his constitutional term, whether by the Belarus union option or other means.

He'll have to replace Lukashenko to do that. There's no way Lukashenko will ever agree to a true union with Russia. Plus, there will be even more sanctions on Russia if he knocks off Lukashenko or invades Belarus. Lukashenko is no threat or problem for Russia, so an easier way would be to simply change the constitution or to let Medvedev serve another caretaker term as president. I'm guessing that they'll just change the constitution.

Re:To prevent discourse

[White Yeti]

The visa part, at least, is only partially true: "With a valid U.S. passport, you can stay up to 90 days [without a visa] for tourism or business during any 180-day period." I'm pretty sure long-term work or residence always required a visa.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

If he doesn't it will be Kaos all over, with punk bands running around and getting poisoned!

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, it is the new Republican narrative.

Rich men are great and never rape women! All women want a man to grab them by the pussy.

There is no such thing as pollution, if there were, the free market would settle it.

Police brutality does not occur, and the police are not racist just because they let white men get away with crimes while shooting black men in their homes and yards.

All Islams are terrorists and white supremacy is not violent, they are some fine people.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

^shameless self promotion^ sad but true.

You wouldn't need to if you weren't spreading misinformation and propaganda.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, we are seeing the opposite of that. The EU now requires US citizens to get visas, something completely unheard of in history. These are not things that can be easily mended, and are hard diplomatic splits. France even did a test missile launch, which is unheard of.

What? Both of these things are well known and your ignorance discredits you. The EITAS fee is no different than the one the US requires for EU visitors and France has long had its own independent and distinct missile program. The reason you didn't know about theocrats is twofold. One, like the US and Russia, they had suspended the tests as part of a treaty and two, they didn't need to scream like Iran and North Korea about it.

They already have their bonafides.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

LePenn [sic] believes in independence and capitalism. That's funny.

LePen is notorious for opposing free trade and is strongly in favor of protectionism. She opposes privatization and is in favor of strengthening the state funded public sector.

You know why the yellow vests riot in France? Because they don't like the capitalist banker president who takes away their social services.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Type44Q]

You'd better watermark this just in case the Dems try to put it to use... ;)

Re: To prevent discourse

[terrycarlino]

Let's not be hyperbolic about this. I'd be one of the first to call out the identitarian left on any of these agendas, but don't paint the entire Democratic party with this brush.

Twitter banned a Democratic feminist because she posted men can't be women.

The AFL-CIO came out against the Green New Deal.

Dems from across the U.S. came out against Anti-semitism when they saw it. And at least one high profile Dem was dragged for it and Republicans and Democrats spoke out to defend her.

It's time to put away the rhetoric. The U.S. is moving right, that includes previous far left Democrats, who are becoming moderate Democrats and are shocked and worried about where the progressives are going.

This is not especially new. In the early 20th century the progressives so tainted their brand that the Democratic party ran from the label for nearly 80 years. They are doing it again.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

NONE of that is bloody true. Moron has already made up his mind and put his opposition in an crazy position that only exists in his sad sad little mind. Nothing valuable was said nor lost so let's forget it and move on.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Marcon was not a force of nature but a work of anti-Le Penn sentiment combined with massive investment in means of mass (electronic) influence trough media.
Methods for which Trump and his supporting company got the blame but Obama got away with. Whether Putin meddled is a question here - there is no evidence of that except reports from Macron's campaign that said so. Can be just a report w/o merit as it is often the case. This is not to say I would not suspect Putin doing it if it was in his own or Russia interests. I just believe Macron's supporters had lots of money and support in circles of power.

Re:To prevent discourse

[mjwx]

Partly, but that's only a small part of the bigger picture. It's primarily because he knows there's a storm coming, as soon as Trump is gone and Brexit isn't distracting every moment of British political discourse anymore, the genie he let out of the bottle of political interference is going to cause serious blowback in Russia when it's used back against them in kind.

This threat is already prevalent for him in some ways given that he tried the same tactic to get Le Penn in power in France, but didn't count on Macron turning up as a force of nature capable of capturing votes better than his propaganda campaigns ever could. I have no doubt French security services are already looking at ways to turn the tables under Macron's leadership therefore, given Macron himself was personally targeted by Putin. As soon as other big boys like America and the UK come on board, if their security services aren't already in spite of their inept national governance, Russia, is, frankly, fucked.

So the only thing Putin can do is try and enact laws and powers to control and shut down the internet to try and prevent that, but the irony is that in doing so he's only pissing off his own citizens even more and speeding up his inevitable demise.

If we weren't talking about Russia I'd say you'd have an exceptionally good point.

However Russia is not like the west, it doesn't matter how authoritarian Putin gets there will be no popular uprising as there wasn't against Stalin or subsequent communists. Right now enough Russians are singing Putin's praises that he doesn't need to worry about fixing elections or pesky term limits, a lot of Russians think that Putin has made Russia strong again. Many of these people are also willing to patrol the streets and report their neighbours for being unpatriotic citizens. Most Russians have never known any other life except under the heel of another Russian and as long as the foot in the boot on their neck is a Russian foot, they seem to be content to accept it.

Putin wants to keep the west destabilised as the west is pretty much the only threat to his dictatorship. I'm guessing he's hoping to well and truly be in power by the time Trump is gone and Brexit has been sorted.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to put away the rhetoric. The U.S. is moving right, that includes previous far left Democrats, who are becoming moderate Democrats and are shocked and worried about where the progressives are going.

The people who are shocked and worried about where "progressives" are going are those tied to the establishment (aka, the oppressors who have something to lose) and their faithful lemmings who just want to be told to hate somebody poorer and more ethnic than they are.

In reality, by and large, the US is rejecting the bigotry and hypocrisy of the rightwing and its inherent exploitation and abuse, which is so malignant they actually embraced the blatantly dishonest blowhard of Donald Trump.

You should put away his rhetoric and look at the truth.

This is not especially new. In the early 20th century the progressives so tainted their brand that the Democratic party ran from the label for nearly 80 years. They are doing it again.

Actually, the Democratic Party was anti-Progressive at the time, it was Republicans who slipped into it under Teddy Roosevelt, but then Taft took over and backed out, and by the time Wilson got involved they decided to call themselves Liberals.

And he was not even half as good for the public as FDR who took over after the Republican failings of the 1920s finally came due in the 1930s.

Once Trump crashes the economy, we'll be back where we were then, holding the true tainted corruption accountable.

Re: To prevent discourse

[tehcyder]

It's indicative of the current political slant on slashdot that this is modded Flamebait, whereas the mirror image Right Wing Nutjob post above is modded Insightful.

Re: To prevent discourse

[CaptainDork]

And, NO COLLUSION!

Re: To prevent discourse

[CaptainDork]

You noticed that, too.

Re: To prevent discourse

[CaptainDork]

Yes, the needle is pegged to the hard right.

A characteristic of needles is that they swing.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

I was reading your post and nodding along until I got to the last paragraph where you seemed to veer off into fantasy land. The west has gotten a taste of authoritarianism. Our governments won't give that up quickly or easily. And there's every sign that a significant part of the population are absolutely fine with that so long as it affords them some illusion of being safe.

Re:To prevent discourse

[CaptainDork]

You just revealed Trump's strategy, as well.

Re:To prevent discourse

[MitchDev]

Nah, letting people say they believe the Earth is flat or that you shouldn;t get your kids vaccinated just helps the rest of us identify the morons...

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, those are legit left wing positions. Absolutely no caricature or hyperbole or misrepresentation or outright lying there

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically, explicitly, tell us what isn't true and why. Leftist Hardmode: do it without insults, strawmen, or appeals to emotion.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything I said in the OP as leftist positions can be demonstrated as mainstream, mostly from the 2020 Democratic candidates who have said literally what I did, not even paraphrased.

The examples of the Right are ridiculous caricatures that nobody espouses, except for maybe trolls like Milo, or edgy teenagers on 4chan.

Specifically which leftist positions do you deny? I will find supporting quotes from mainstream Democrats who proudly assert them.

Re: To prevent discourse

[DamnOregonian]

No shit. What the fuck is going on here? Did the Breitbart crowd discover slashdot?

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dems from across the U.S. came out against Anti-semitism when they saw it."

You lying shill.

The Democrats WERE the antisemites, and when pushed to condemn and correct themselves, they passed a resolution primarily condemning Islamophobia.... Despite it being Muslims in their party espousing hatred and Nazi-inspired tropes about Jews.

I'm a jew who used to vote straight ticket Democrat. Never again. I fucking hate Trump, but I'll be voting for him in 2020. He might be a crass, bumbling moron, but the Democrat party is spiraling into actual Nazis who are feeling more and more emboldened to openly spew unrepentant hatred, where Trump has repeatedly condemned it (despite the media's narrative).

Re: To prevent discourse

[DamnOregonian]

Oh, shut the fuck up you gaslighting shit stain.
Slimy little trolls like you are why this whole thing has gotten so out of control.
You know damn well those are misleading caricatures.

Re: To prevent discourse

[quintus_horatius]

The problem is russian government is kind of fake

The Russian government is, unfortunately, all too real, and it's slipping back into Stalin-esque authoritarianism.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Wat?

The yellow vests are literally protesting socialism piggy backing on climate change panic...

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to put away the rhetoric. The U.S. is moving right, that includes previous far left Democrats, who are becoming moderate Democrats and are shocked and worried about where the progressives are going.

Well, as a former Democrat who left the party because of its increasing focus on identity politics and other extremism, I really hope that's true. But, if so, you had better get your party in fucking check before the 2020 primaries, because if you put forth some far-left radical for the general election, not only will you not get my vote (again) but you can look forward to another four years of Trump come 2021.

If you want to win the general election, your best bet is Tulsi Gabbard or Beto O'Rourke. If you field some blue-hair nutjob screaming about how much she hates white men, Trump won't even have to campaign. Right now, the biggest threat to a Democratic win in 2020 is Democrats.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark my words, within the next 10 years Putin is done, and liberalism will return to the West as the natural leaning of human progress. The far-right (I refuse to submit to it's poor attempt at rebranding and call it alt-right) is showing it's true colours as a far bigger terrorist threat to Western society now than even ISIS and will be dealt with appropriately.

I agree with most of your analysis, however....

1. Liberalism is dying and won't come back. This has nothing to do with Putin, Trump, the authoritarians, politics, culture, etc; This is because of technology. Technology is the friend of dictators. We are now constructing complete surveillance police states everywhere. Sure, the US and the EU are trying to hold back the wave, but eventually they too will become complete surveillance states. Russia and China especially are on the front of this wave, and they will take it to its natural conclusion. Liberalism as a political/economic/cultural system was great before the advent of things like machine learning, etc. Liberalism was the triumph of the Age of Reason. We have left the Age of Reason behind.

2. I also disagree with what is the bigger threat to Western society. As I stated, technology is what is enabling the rise of surveillance states and dictators like Putin and Xi Jinping. Technology is by far the biggest threat to any sort of reasonable "liberal" society. Sure, all manner of hand wringing and rationalizing about how tools can be used to deflect the blame onto people "people kill people, guns don't kill people", but at the end of the conversation, without those tools(technology) we wouldn't be in this predicament. And to be clear, I'm not a luddite or someone who dreams of living a 19th century lifestyle, but the evidence is clear, and gets clearer all the time. Look at where we are now, and then contemplate where we will be in say 10 or 20 years.

3. Putin and Xi Jinping are not going anywhere. Unless something completely out of the blue happens or they have a major health issue, they are going to continue ruling their dictatorships for years to come. Technology is going to enable this. If anything, they will spread this new "system" of surveillance police state "management" of peoples to other countries. How long until Brazil, The Phillipines, India, Turkey, etc become like Russia and China?

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be so sure, in fact, that in itself is part of Putin's propaganda effort to try and prevent dissent with the belief that everyone's for him, they're not.

Things have become much more precarious for him lately, mothers questioning why their sons are dying in Ukraine when they're not even by Putin's own claims supposed to be there, changes to pensions, and rising costs of living, coupled with continuously decreasing population preventing the sort of population growth needed to maintain growing prosperity is having a real effect.

I would argue that this increased censorship is symptomatic of precisely the fact that Putin knows he's becoming ever more vulnerable. Don't forget people were saying the same thing in the 80s, the collapse of the USSR came as an almost complete shock. I suspect the collapse of Putin's neo-USSR will be the same.

I know The Hill isn't everyone's cup of tea, but this opinion piece is actually quite a sensible consideration for Western policy makers given appeasement and attempts at welcoming Russia into the West, including talks about letting it join NATO even after the collapse of the USSR ended up as an abject failure that has come back to haunt us:

https://thehill.com/opinion/na...

We thought the Cold War ended in 1991, but for people like Putin it never ended, and whilst people like that do remain in Russia it can't ever be trusted as a state entity. It accuses the West of wanting to destroy it even when the West has made such moves, but it makes that accusation because that's what it fears most, so perhaps if we're going to be accused of that regardless, then that's actually what it most needs, and areas like Vladivostok could well become the center of a modern progressive successful independent nation in the East, and the same for St Petersburg in the West, with Moscow left isolated with a choice of cleaning up, or continuing it's rot.

Re:To prevent discourse

[geekymachoman]

> This is to prevent discourse on his attempts to maintain power beyond his constitutional term, whether by the Belarus union option or other means.

I don't care about Putin. But one thing's for sure - Putin don't need no internet bill to stay at power and people complaining about it. You cannot stay in power if you enact bills like this, it will not help, and people like Putin are not stupid to think that law can help them stay in power. What they do is they allow other people to get elected, and these other people are just muppets for people like Putin (like Dmitry Medvedev).

Times of forcing people to do anything is far gone. Now, you manipulate them to think they got what they want.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Since chromosomes are what matters to you, why don't you just ask people if they're XX or XY? Oh, right, because nobody does that except you and geneticists.

If you sound like a woman, have a body like a woman, and wear clothes like a woman, everyone else (except you) will definitely believe they're a woman. Only you do biopsies to find out, because you're creepy.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Insults insults waaa waaa.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are but what am I? You see I'm rubber and you are glue, that means if anyone supports breitbart that person is you.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Mab_Mass]

The discrepancy is probably due to the fact that the "right wing nutjob" accurately named several left-wing dictums, while the left-wing but job just named a bunch of left-wing caricatures of what they apparently think the right wing believes.

Wow. BOTH of the posts were simple, one-dimensional caricatures of the other side. If you think that the first post "accurately named" any left-leaning policies, you need to get out of your bubble.

Seriously, I'm about as left as they come, but none of those statements was even close to something I'd claim as a valid position.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark my words, within the next 10 years Putin is done, and liberalism will return to the West as the natural leaning of human progress. The far-right (I refuse to submit to it's poor attempt at rebranding and call it alt-right) is showing it's true colours as a far bigger terrorist threat to Western society now than even ISIS and will be dealt with appropriately.

You're an idiot.
Liberalism will *return* to the West? What the hell do you think we have now??? It's literally never been so liberal. You should have lived in the '70s if you think this country has moved right.
Every college campus and 90% of media outlets , including televsion studios, Hollywood, and publications, are full of card carrying, flag waving liberals. You've got actual politicians claiming Fox news isn't legit while sucking up all the swill that CNN and MSNBC have to offer. FN wasn't even going to be allowed for the DNC primaries. That's a tilt to the Right?
What's changed in the past few years? Let's look at the indicators: Well, there's still gay marriage now and that's not been rescinded, so we've grown more liberal there; 50% of TV commercials now seem to feature an interracial couple, w/ same sex couples starting to break through, definitely a move away from conservatism. The media is pushing the idea of dozens of genders now, men can be pregnant, far left politicians calling for the abolishment of ICE and effectively, even our borders. You've got college kids shutting down Ben Shaprio, Candice Owen , and other right wing (not "far" right nor "alt" right) speakers regularly, putting free speech 6 feet under wherever conservative viewpoints try to get a fair share of ear time.
Marches every 2 weeks denouncing Trump as a fascist dictator while they continue to freely march unimpeded, ironically illustrating the very lie they promote.
Anyone who objects in any manner, regardless of facts, are denounced with one of the holy accusations: bigot, racist, or ophobe, because you cannot justify your views in the face of an objective argument.

Right wing terrorism? It's not even terrorism. What's the unifying ideology? Do these guys have a membership card? Is there a hierarchical organization these guys belong to, orders they follow? No there isn't, and all the Salon or Now This articles in the world claiming otherwise don't change the reality.
Besides, many of these gun toting madman were anti-Trump and anti conservative, so your narrative is just more lies.
You people actually love Putin and you revere Russia, as you do Cuba and the Castros. You admire the powerful government, their control of the people, the dependency that socialism and communism foments, the ideological fantasy of perfect equality and erasure of the individual in your little Marxist utopia.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Highdude702]

Unfortunately its the sad truth. You cant really be that blind to the world.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

except from where I am sitting, the far left are the terrorists, attempting to institute reforms and laws that would make us the next russia under putin.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not be hyperbolic about this. I'd be one of the first to call out the identitarian left on any of these agendas, but don't paint the entire Democratic party with this brush.

Twitter banned a Democratic feminist because she posted men can't be women.

The AFL-CIO came out against the Green New Deal.

Dems from across the U.S. came out against Anti-semitism when they saw it. And at least one high profile Dem was dragged for it and Republicans and Democrats spoke out to defend her.

It's time to put away the rhetoric. The U.S. is moving right, that includes previous far left Democrats, who are becoming moderate Democrats and are shocked and worried about where the progressives are going.

This is not especially new. In the early 20th century the progressives so tainted their brand that the Democratic party ran from the label for nearly 80 years. They are doing it again.

The millions of Bernie Sanders bumper stickers I saw last election sure showed me how conservative the US has become.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Maybe get your news from a source that isn't Breitbart or something like that.

In reality they are protesting Macrons economic reforms that are supposed to fix the broken capitalism in France.

Some of those reforms where to give the rich tax breaks and loosening labor laws to disadvantage laborers, while increasing costs for the lower working class through things like fuel prices. This pissed a lot of people off and and started the yellow vest movement. It has really little to do with protesting socialism, because that is what Macron was trying to reduce in favor of trickle down capitalism. You know, when the rich are happy, they'll employ more people and pay higher wages. Labor laws that benefit the worker and high corporate taxation are only hindering them from doing that. And that kind of logic.

The continuing protests have less to do with fuel prices but with the other economic reforms people do not agree with.

Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/world/europe/france-emmanuel-macron.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-reform/french-government-outlines-gradual-corporate-tax-cut-plans-idUSKCN1BA2HX
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/macron-labour-laws-reforms-new-france-union-protests-a7962141.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-reform-publicsector/french-public-sector-unions-call-for-another-strike-idUSKBN1HI0P2

Re: To prevent discourse

[LordAba]

Exactly, rejecting bigotry ("CIS white male" as used by the far left in much the same way the old casual racists used "those rascally negros"). Rejecting anti-free speech (which is the number one way of identified and deraticalizing people, instead of screaming at them and chasing them off into their own little echo chambers). Rejecting stereotypes (the gay movement really took off when so-called normal members of society came out, showing that being gay WASN'T an identity, but just who they were attracted to). Rejecting conflating identify with people (people blaming Chelsea Clinton for criticizing all Muslims instead of... Ilhan Omar?)

Oh wait, the radical left isn't doing any of that? HUH.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark my words....

Consider them marked.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Farmer Tim]

Hey, taking biopsies is a legitimate* fetish!

*Between consenting adults.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Farmer Tim]

...mass (electronic) influence trough media.

A typo, but still accurate.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

White men feel threatened at the moment. It's time for survival, not reason.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

That's still easy-mode, sorry:

Men can be women has nothing to do with science. Those are roles you're referring to, and yes, people can assume different roles throughout their lives. Their at-birth sex is not your business and therefore irrelevant.

Environmental destruction is already having a massive negative impact on humanity's long-term survival, whether it's habitat loss and species extinction or air and water pollution, or ocean acidification and dead zones; unfortunately no amount of proof aside from witnessing societal collapse will ever change your mind.. and even then it still might not, after all flat-earthers are a thing.

Black males commit more murders than white males because of long-lasting systematic discrimination which have denied generations of black communities opportunities to succeed. That doesn't excuse the individual, but it explains the statistic.

The Abrahamic religions in general aren't religions of peace, but we are tolerant of them because there are some good aspects of religious beliefs and some good people who believe them. In the end, we have to allow people to be ignorant and make bad choices because to deny them that is to deny them freedom. All we can hope is that the ignorant will eventually wise up.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Mab_Mass]

"Men can be women" is established left-wing dogma these days

While you're right that support of transgender rights is a left-wing position, the issue is more complicated than simply insisting that "men can be women." In fact, all of the positions listed in the original post are gross oversimplifications of complicated positions designed to appear stupid. This is, at its heart, the very definition of caricatures.

For the sake of trying to illuminate some of this complexity, let's just try to unpack this single issue, shall we? (I assume that I'm probably wasting my time, as conversations on the internet rarely change people's opinions, but I'm bored at work.)

First off, how do you define what is even means to be "men" vs. "women"? We all have some basic common-sense ideas, but none of them work as solid definitions. If we try to define things at the chromosome level, you can try to say that XX is a woman and that XY is a man, but what about XXY or XYY or XXXY? There are more, but you get the idea. If we then say that is complicated, but we can define based upon external genitalia, things get even more complicated. For one, there are hermaphrodites - where do they go? Also, some people have the standard XX or XY genotypes yet have external genitalia consistent with the opposite sex. I work in biotech and a colleague of mine tells a story of working for a prenatal genetic testing group that found an expecting mother had an XY genotype with a pure female phenotype.

Already, just trying to define terms, we are forced to abandon any kind of simplistic binary gender identity. It turns out that things are more complicated, even if we only focus on concrete issues like genotypes and external physiology.

Next, we turn to the even more complicated issues of sexual identity. In other words, how does any given person identify their own gender? I know very little about you personally, but I'll guess (based upon /. demographics) that you think of yourself as a man. (I also am a man, FWIW) When is it that you made this decision? Have you ever considered yourself or thought of yourself as a woman? Personally, I haven't. I'm a dude, and I've always seen myself that way. In other words, my gender identity was not a choice, but rather something that is intrinsic to who I am.

Now, imagine that you have this same sense of being a particular gender, but the organs between your legs don't match your particular sense of self. Most people's identities match their genitals, but for some people, they don't.

The current "left-wing dogma" is that people should get to decide for themselves their own gender identity, based upon the same intrinsic sense that you are using to identify your own gender, regardless of their genitals.

The statement "men can be women" misses this complexity. Instead, it tries to mix up various terms and frames the whole issue in a way that tries to deny all of the complexity mentioned above. That is what makes it a caricature.

As a side note, why should anyone else even give a shit about my gender? In a great many ways, allowing a flexible gender identity should be considered the right-wing, libertarian position. After all, unless I'm trying to have sex with someone, I really don't give a rat's ass how their clothing, etc. relates to what is under the clothing.

Re: To prevent discourse

[c6gunner]

First off, how do you define what is even means to be "men" vs. "women"?

I stopped reading there. You say that "men can be women" is a caricature ... and then drop this gem. Wonderful. "More complex" my shiny metal ass.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't need help thanks. Anybody can spot them a mile away. Unless they are idiots themselves.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Mab_Mass]

I stopped reading there.

And this is why you are in a bubble. The next paragraph approached this question from a hard-science biology perspective. If you read it, you may have learned something.

"More complex" my shiny metal ass.

Apparently, that ass is also a helmet that blocks out new ideas.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Beginning in 2021, US citizens (and those from about 60 other countries who can now travel visa-free to the EU) will need to complete an electronic, online authorization (and pay a €8 fee) before travelling to the EU. This is not a visa.

Re: To prevent discourse

[c6gunner]

They're not new ideas; they're a collection of incoherent rambling talking points which have nothing to do with the subject. I stopped reading because I've seen it all before; you, like all of your ilk, have confused obfuscation for complexity. The pedophiles over at NAMBLA love taking the same approach: "But how do we define the difference between an adult and a minor? We all have some basic common sense definitions, but none of them work as solid definitions".

When someone asks you if "Kailyn" Jenner is a man or a woman, and you start waxing philosophical about how we don't really know what those words mean, it's clear that you're not actually engaging in any complex thinking; you're engaging in rote repetition intended to confuse the issue.

You are also - rather handily - demonstrating that the original guy was right.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Edit: It's sad that this needs to be spelled out to people past the 4th grade. One would think common-sense would be a bit more common.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Mab_Mass]

You have no idea what I said because you stopped reading.

I have often heard people like Rush Limbaugh talk about how the left is unable to have a discourse based upon ideas. Instead, there is a claim that there is simply a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss, shout down, or vilify the holders of those ideas.

Here, you have done exactly this, even to the point of comparing any discussion of gender identity to pedophilia.

As for Kaitlyn Jenner, I don't wax philosophical - she wants to be treated as woman, so let's treat her as a woman. It costs me nothing and makes no difference in my life. That is the heart of the issue. Whether or not you want to believe that she is "really" a man is irrelevant and depends entirely on how you define "man."

Re: To prevent discourse

[c6gunner]

Whether or not you want to believe that she is "really" a man is irrelevant and depends entirely on how you define "man."

But no, the left doesn't believe that a man can be a woman :D

I would love to have some indepth discourse with an honest, intelligent person on the far left. I'm still waiting for one to show up.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Mab_Mass]

I would love to have some indepth discourse with an honest, intelligent person on the far left. I'm still waiting for one to show up.

And again, you simply refuse to engage in the realm of ideas and resort to an ad hominem attack.

Earlier, I said that I suspected that I was wasting my time having this discussion. Turns out that I was right.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Obfuscant]

The EU now requires US citizens to get visas,

Regulation 2018/1806 says something quite different.

Re: To prevent discourse

[c6gunner]

Yep, it's obviously a waste of time for you to claim that the phrase "men can be women" is a caricature, then engage in multi-paragraph obfuscation which doesn't actually answer anything, and finally close off your performance by saying "Kaitlin Jenner can be a woman if she wants to be and anyway it all depends on how you define man". You didn't really expect that to persuade anyone, did you?

I also knew that you were going to waste your time, but I looked forward to the show. You did not disappoint. This whole "you don't want to talk to me even though I'm totally dishonest!" bit seems to be the final routine of the jester as the curtains fall down on top of him.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no bad tactics, only bad targets.

The Democrats are, and have always been, the party of racists. There was never a "switch" in the parties, only a switch is in who the Dems decided it was okay to hate for political gain.

Re: To prevent discourse

[mapkinase]

Many Russians in the West think that Putin is the best given the choice between inept unconstructive and immoral opposition and him.

It's not the lack of data, it's just the reality does not match fairy tales of sjw liberals.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of jews worldwide oppressed, systematically executed by the millions, enslaved, and expelled from their homes. Less than 0.09% murder rate of blacks.

400,000 Armenians executed. Millions more oppressed and displaced. Less than 0.2% murder rate of blacks.

Millions of Koreans murdered, raped, enslaved for almost a century. Less than 0.07% murder rate of blacks.

African Americans are given $750,000 in public assistance (on average per citizen), paired with 40 years of positive discrimination in jobs and education. They have the highest average funding per k-12 student. No African American alive today was a slave. Neither were their parents. Neither were their grandparents. Neither were their great grandparents.

When do the excuses for them end?

Genuinely, what is the point where you stop the racism of low expectations, and start asking that their culture condemn violence and move into the modern era?

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't that you want to think you're a woman. Nobody cares. Have a blast.

The problem is that California literally passed a law with up to a year in jail and $250k fine for misgendering a trans person.

The problem is that my 15 year old daughter has to share a bathroom with a 6'3" lunatic who cut off their dick so they could be in there with her, and she's called a bigot for being uncomfortable and embarrassed.

You and the Democrats have gaslit normal Americans into thinking we're the crazy ones in this scenario. We aren't. You're the one who is fucking insane.

Re: To prevent discourse

[mikaere]

Genuinely, what is the point where you stop the racism of low expectations, and start asking that their culture condemn violence and move into the modern era?

The USA is a country entirely predicated on racism, either through slavery or colonial violence against the First Nation peoples. Blacks have only had emancipation for around 50 years, that is 10% of the time that the USA has been in existence.

Your systems are inherently racist because this is what happens under colonisation. Have a look at the other European colonies e.g. Australia, New Zealand and review the research taking place there.

Blacks being victimised by your state institutions such as the police or the courts is an entirely predictable outcome of colonisation. You don't see it because your society has a white normative bias, and probably because you don't study this aspect of sociology either.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

The statement "men can be women" misses this complexity.

Except for Lola.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear that frequently from my German peers who like to get their news from Russian media outlets.
When cornered, and they simply have to agree that Putin does bad things, they like to deflect by providing examples from Putin's political opposition.
Examples like how that one guy during the bird flu scare apparently proposed that Russians should shoot down birds with their guns.
What a crazy guy, right? Who would wand someone like that lead Russia? Putin is much more sensible!
My hypothesis on this is that this is simply part of Putin's propaganda. Reasons why I believe this follow below.

When I ask my superior, who is a PhD/Engineer from Russia working here in Germany, he says that Putin only allows the crazy ones to oppose him openly, because they make him look better in comparison. All viable alternatives are eliminated from the political race by any means possible.

Just think about it a bit. Russia is a big country. They have over 140 million people in there. Do you think Putin must be the best choice among all those people? If yes, then you must think very lowly about the Russians. Kind of like Trump or Clinton are supposed to be the best of the best of the US?

From personal experience I know that there are highly competent people from Russia.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

We pretend that they weren't mass murdering and raping each other for ten thousand years before white people arrived.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

"STOP reading Breitbart. Here's a bunch of far left shitrags with an obvious agenda saying things that confirm my bias."

I literally have participated in every yellow vest protest this year. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Maybe you can offer some insight.
So what do you think makes LePen a better capitalist and better at fighting for freedom than Macron?

Re: To prevent discourse

[rtb61]

I prefer simply rules. The censorship law is entirely anti-democratic and opposed totally opposed to equal rights. Specifically it places public officials above private citizens, public officials can insult and humiliate citizens in any way they choose and citizens will be criminalised should they dare to point out the moral failings of those officials. The law is entirely corrupt on that basis, as it places the rights of some citizens above the rights of other citizens and should be roundly condemned upon that basis.

All legislation must be equal in interpretation and application and should never create special rules for some, whilst denying the majority the same access to those rules and protections. So meh, Fuck Putin and the Russian government, they are a pack of potential monarchist cunts. That is the only fair and reasonable response to those unequal and biased laws.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Waccoon]

...a lot of Russians think that Putin has made Russia strong again.

Funny, I hear many US citizens saying the same thing about their leader.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Good post. Too bad you stopped before you got to how modern left-wing mainstream tries to solve those problems.

I am as right wing as they come, but I do recognize the problems you speak of. The problem with that left-wing mainstream (or, perhaps, only a vocal minority) often suggest over-the-top solutions, like "let's have 63 genders, all of them equal, and people can decide on the spot to which one they belong to". And if you try to point out the flaws, the resort to silly ad hominem.

This brings us to your question: "As a side note, why should anyone else even give a shit about my gender?" There are many reasons, most of them come from the fact, that in many cases law recognizes inherent differences between statistically average man and statistically average woman. Some examples are conscription, competitive sports, cavity searches (usually they are performed by the person of the same gender). There are also societal norms, like "women and children first", or "women-only shelter for the abused", etc. And then you have businesses, like "ladies only night". In all those cases your gender is important to other people.

Now, I'm sure there is some middle ground to be reached, some compromise to be found. But unreasonable stubbornness on my side and moving the goal post by your side, and ad hominems from both sides make the search for it most difficult.

Nonetheless I bid you good day, dear stranger with reasonable views, know the time you've used to write your post was not wasted.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

If 50 years is then percent, then you say that USA was founded around 1519. I think you're a bit off.

Re:To prevent discourse

[xenobyte]

I suppose that depends on what the Russian Government defines as "fake news"...

The stuff manufactured by the troll factories like the Internet Research Agency clearly is... but that is legal because it is meant for western media...

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you participated.
It's more likely you're a lying piece of shit. Even the dumbest among the Frenchmen knows that politics in continental Europe are far more nuanced than just left and right. What you call "far left shitrages" is seen as being centrist in Europe. This leaves you as being a troll. Or maybe one of the dumbasses among the Americans who really don't know any better, because their political system is limited to only two sides.

I am friends with a couple of yellow vests who have protested in the past, after all France is only a couple of kilometres to the south. Fuel prices are always a reason, but there's much more to it now.

They do not like Macron for his politics and how he handles the protests. But they also dislike Marine Le-Pen. It's become an anti-establishment movement and those politicians are all part of the establishment.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymous sock puppet praise to make yourself feel better. Sad.

Re: To prevent discourse

[walshy007]

There's quite a bit more to it, which I won't have time to fully get into but would like to make a few short additions after commenting on something.

As a side note, why should anyone else even give a shit about my gender? In a great many ways, allowing a flexible gender identity should be considered the right-wing, libertarian position.

I'd consider it the left trying to have their cake and eat it too. It is trying to enforce the association of a particular behaviour to a particular biological sex. Which may or may not be the case. To those who grew up with "do what you want to do in life" identity politics is not consistent and often seems to be used for power plays.

Next, we turn to the even more complicated issues of sexual identity. In other words, how does any given person identify their own gender?

What do you mean by "gender" historically the gendering of words was a grammatical construct. You could gender a word not just by sex but by location, time of day, etc many languages do this.

Commonly it can be used as a euphemism for biological sex, but that makes little sense in the 'gender identity' aspects as a non-outlier plain case could easily claim to be a different biological sex.

To those that push identity politics it seems to almost be like a religion, making claims about some 'innate sense of being' about a particular sex.

It's all well and good for people to have weird and wonderful senses of spirituality, but it isn't cool to push them on others. Some clearly male person with stereo-typically feminine traits claims to be female? fine, but others don't have to agree and are entitled to think the person is deluded, that instead it's fine for guys to be how they are and it doesn't change them being guys.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Scroatzilla]

Ha, it's that level of obscurity and pseudo-intellectualism that makes this "men can be women" so stupid. "Oh no, your tiny pea brain can't understand how complicated it is. My post-graduate-educated colleagues and I have invented our own language to describe this phenomenon."

Nobody did "care" about gender in any significant sense until it was politicized, and pseudo-science was invoked to call people stupid science deniers. In short, men cannot be women. You can choose to indulge a person's manifestation of gender dysphoria out of politeness or self-righteousness, but you don't get to impose your fictional terminology to "prove" your position, nor shame others for not wasting time wading through your gobbledygook dictionary.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Mab_Mass]

I'd consider it the left trying to have their cake and eat it too. It is trying to enforce the association of a particular behaviour to a particular biological sex. Which may or may not be the case.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. From where I sit, the left is not trying to enforce an association between behavior and biological sex. It is quite the opposite, in fact. Trying to enforce, for example, the notion of strong, stoic men has resulted in generations of emotionally immature men with anger issues. From what I've seen, there is more of a push to break down the strict boundaries of gender roles to allow room for more personal expression. To some extant, the feminist movement has moved the goalposts for women, allowing them to express more traditionally masculine traits and to get involved in rough sports, etc. On the flip side, however, image the reaction by many if a little boy when to school wearing a pink, frilly dress. Quite frankly, in many places, this boy would be in physical danger for something as trivial as clothing choice.

What do you mean by "gender"

In the most basic sense, I mean gender as the male/female dichotomy as a social construct. See the American Psychological Associations's description for more details.

To those that push identity politics it seems to almost be like a religion, making claims about some 'innate sense of being' about a particular sex.

When did you decide to identify as a man or woman? I'm honestly not trolling here. Instead, I just want to illustrate how for the majority of people, this is a nonsense, no-brainer question. For some, however, this is a very difficult question. I have known several trans people, and one common thread that is echoed across everything that I've read is that even as a small child, they have had a sense of being the opposite gender of their biological sex.

Certainly identity politics is fraught with bad politics/power plays, etc., but please don't think that this is only something the the left is guilty of. The far-right's obsession with immigration and fear of the loss of white culture is identity politics at its worst.

It's all well and good for people to have weird and wonderful senses of spirituality, but it isn't cool to push them on others. Some clearly male person with stereo-typically feminine traits claims to be female? fine, but others don't have to agree and are entitled to think the person is deluded, that instead it's fine for guys to be how they are and it doesn't change them being guys.

If you want to think transgender people are deluded, that's fine - you can think whatever you want. At the same time, though, you should recognize that trans people have existed for a long time in different cultures.

Literally, all that most trans people want is to just live their lives as the gender of their choice. They don't want to push anything on you, only to be treated with respect, be addressed with a particular set of pronouns, and live according to how they picture themselves. Why is this such a big ask?

Re:To prevent discourse

[doconnor]

Do the Russian not see that the West views them as a pathetic tin-pot dictatorship, rather then a fellow modern Western state that they easily could be?

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

There are certainly those among the Russians who see it that way. But due to the long time under the Soviet Union resentments against the West run very deep. It will probably take another couple of generations before the majority of people is no longer tainted by the recent history between the Soviet Union and the West.

From what I have learned by talking to various (self-proclaimed) Russians is that many Russians see themselves as the heroes of WW2 for having defeated the Nazis. And the West being ungrateful bastards for not acknowledging that heroism.

And of course they don't like the West for destroying their dear Soviet Union.

Many see the the national embarrassment through Boris Yeltsin as a fault of the West. Many think that it was the West who meddled with their elections and got Yeltsin there.

Conversely many see Putin as the cure to the Western cancer that has been growing in their society. He is to make Russia great again.

The thing that happened with Yeltsin of course also justifies the Kremlin doing whatever to get revenge.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing with social construct is, they are exactly that, constructs. Gender as a social construct makes sense at a societal level but bot an individual if keeping it to what it was originally use for in psychology. Having an individual claim they are a biological x/y/z when in reality they are not is just plain lying and enforces the "men and women have to act certain ways" story, which is in direct conflict to the more typical "do what you want" attitudes.

the creation of mental Gymnastics and use of the word male/fenale to designate anything but biological sex is what a lot of people are against in general, because you can't really deal with subjects in that matter. The same thing happens but in more extreme scenarios such as otherkin, similar reasoning is used and it's entirely fabricated and based on personal belief.

It irks people I think because it is like hearing someone assert the earth is flat, and then redefine flat not to do with geometry but how they innately feel about the structure of society.. Just insanity.

People argue with them for the same reason people argue with flat earthers. Yes it would be better to not, but if people aren't making an assertion about it and living their lives just fine and dandy those kinds of discussions won't happen will they?

As for whether I am male or female, this was decided at birth for I was not a genetic not phenotype outlier. It was decided by reality, not by an innate sense of feeling that cannot be tested.

Re: To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe what you just said I'd love to see you study fish biology and get your head around the fact that over 25% of fish on coral reefs are capable of being both male and female in some way in their life time.

Some are both at once, some are always born female but change to male when they're big enough to challenge other males, some live in harems of multiple females with one male, and one of them turns male when something happens to the single male. Yes, that means there are fish that get fucked by a male repeatedly through their lifetime as a female living alongside other females, and then when something happens to that male, turns into a male themselves and starts fucking the rest of the females; they literally take it until it's their turn to give it. Some change based on age, some change based on time of year. Some fish don't ever change, some fish are only ever female and are yet capable of releasing fertilised eggs, yet only when another closely related, but not genetically compatible species mates with them; that is, a male from the other species mates with them but can't fertilise their eggs, yet the act of doing that allows them weirdly, to fertilise their own eggs. Even determination of sexuality isn't straightforward, for turtles for example they hatch from their eggs as either male or female dependent purely on the temperature of the nest.

And yes, I know what you'll say, you'll say "But that's fish, they're different!", but this really just shows an ignorance of evolution, we still share over 70% of our genome with some fish for example because we all evolved from the same base, and as we all evolved from the same base, not only do we still share some of those traits from our shared ancestors but we are also capable of evolving identical traits precisely because we came from the same starting point. It's like a few different cars travelling from New York to California, they might take completely different routes, yet more than one of them may well still end up going through, say, Las Vegas; the fact they take different routes initially doesn't mean everything about their routes will always be different in each case; there's still a chance of passing through the same point.

So when you're being called a stupid science denier, this is really why; because you're making a judgement call that isn't based on science in defiance of the basic scientific fact that gender isn't a binary thing. The fact that most humans are born with either male or female genitalia doesn't change the fact that hermaphrodites are real, and frankly even the idea that genitalia alone define gender is in itself rather short sighted anyway. Honestly, if you really want to have everything you've ever known about gender blown out the water then please learn about gender in fish, and the aspects of that that have been registered in mammals including humans too. It's all a lot weirder than your simplistic male vs. female only mindset.

But I'll let you into a secret, I'm human too, I get it, men who identify as women and vice versa, and people who have sex changes weird me out. It's not politically correct to say that, it's not politically correct to admit that, but it's the truth. I'm not comfortable with it, however that's my problem; and it's your problem too; we don't get to declare science as not science just because we have a problem with something, that's not how it works. The science is well understood and well established; it's not pseudo science as you're claiming, it's real actual solid science and declaring otherwise isn't going to fix you and me being weirded out by those people.

And this has to stop in general, people have to stop deciding that because they don't like something, don't agree with something, or don't understand something it's not science. People like you need to stop being cowards and start owning your position, you need to start saying things like "I don't care how complex gender is, I still don't want people born with male genitalia entering women's changing rooms and vice

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

natural leaning of human progress

Your post is so full of Marxist fallacies that it would take days to debunk them all. Anyone who modded parent up has been had.

Captcha: decoded.

Re:To prevent discourse

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure it isn't flat? Boss said it is in the last meeting, i'm not so sure anymore.

Next week, Trump attempts the same

[Anonymous Coward]

And no one was in the slightest way surprised

Re:Next week, Trump attempts the same

[SocietyoftheFist]

Hey, Trump loves laws like this, he praises Putin and Xi.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[SocietyoftheFist]

You should care about both sides doing this.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that time Obama and the Democrats proposed the same thing? I remember. It's convenient that you forgot.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/flashback-that-time-obama-declared-war-on-fox-news-and-wanted-to-limited-their-access/

Or...perhaps not. Obama pointed out that Fox news hated him and continued to attack him (to include fostering the false claims he was not a natural born US citizen). The link you provided was pretty biased, and based on the comments section, followed by those who barely are able to understand anything too complex. But at no point in the biased opinion piece did it say that Obama or the Democrats had put force a bill or even suggested that people should go to prison for insulting the government or its leaders.

Perhaps not knowing the difference is because English isn't your native language, Gospodin AC?

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[terrycarlino]

I absolutely do.

But pretending that Trump or the Republicans would do this if they could, while conveniently forgetting that Obama and the Democrats actually tried, is a shill move.

Real conservatives are constitutionalists and honor the Bill or Rights.

Unfortunately we've come the point where we're not allowed to criticize people for their actions. Someone can be a war hero of undisputed bravery and still be a political back-stabber. Someone can hold beliefs we disagree with and still hold them with integrity and not be evil. Yet somehow too many people seem to think we're living in a cartoon where all of the opposition works for Satan and any criticism is equivalent to marking someone with 666.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[terrycarlino]

News organizations hating someone was a criteria for excluding reporters than Trump would be talking only to Fox News. If lying about the president was a criteria for getting excluded then I guess Fox would again be the only reporter in the room.

Why not just admit that Obama tried to exclude Fox News and it was a d*ck move and Trump tried to exclude specific reporteres and it was a d*ck move and let it go at that.

Nobody has tried to pass a law in the U.S. to jail people for insulting the government. The left has counted on their buddies in Big Tech to ban people from social media, the "new public square", that is not public and all and not subject to the first amendment. Still a problem, but not the same thing.

There's no points for tribalism.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar. https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/legislation-protects-drivers-injure-protesters/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/08/22/environmentalists-say-new-pipeline-protest-laws-restrict-their-freedom-speech/
No such attempts by Democrats
Republicans are Authoritarians in the majority with a good chuck of outright Fascists.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump doesn't need to do this. He has his own unique solution to media problems. Everything that comes out of his mouth or the mouths of his administration is misinformation, often with several different stances within a week for the media to choose from. The confusion sewn is so great that no media, either for or against him, has been able to gain traction in the constantly shifting sands. Furthermore, he's decimated any government department that he has control of that might add any stability to the discourse on any subject and done much to damage similar elements outside of the government.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[SocietyoftheFist]

Don't try to act so noble. You are a partisan.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to tell who's real. Anyone who thinks that fox news and journalism are the same thing is not real. Anything else is false balance. I'm unsure if you know what "integrity" and "evil" mean. In the US currently, Trump allies, which as best I can tell is just a white power movement, constant lie and slander their opponents, while their opponents actually criticize policy and push for honesty and transparency. The era in which the Obama administration sought to limit Fox news' access was there era in which they were pushing the birther nonsense well after it was debunked. At that point that wasn't news, it was propaganda. What is the thing that CNN is pushing that has been repeatedly proven false but they're still pushing it hard? There isn't anything. Don't say the Russia investigation because we actually know that Trump and people in his campaign DID lie about their contacts with Russia. It may turn out that Trump had no personal private connections to Russian agents, but that doesn't change the fact that it is almost indisputable at this point that his campaign sought opposition research from people that were fairly obviously associated with Russian intelligence. Even Bannon finally figured out that that sounds a lot like treason.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Real conservatives are constitutionalists and honor the Bill or Rights.

Enjoy your 4% of the popular vote, Gary. Meanwhile, the other 96% said your constitution is oh-so-cute.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[Anonymous Coward]

More uncontained McCain rage. Man, that guy is living eternally rent free in thousands of Trumpist heads – the president's empty one included.

Fox News is a propaganda organization that continually pushed a known lie about the eligibility of the President of the United States to hold office, and spread false information about his citizenship, knowingly. Further: Trump and the Republicans *have* done this to legitimate news outlets, multiple times, to the point of revoking press passes and threatening entire networks directly from the Oval Office.

Selective memory complaining about a short memory: you.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Real conservatives are constitutionalists and honor the Bill or Rights.

I'm convinced that the majority of people who would label themselves "conservative" do not fall into this category. Therefore, I think you have a classic No True Scotsman fallacy here.

Besides, I resent your implication that the converse - to be a real liberal you must not be a constitutionalist or honor the Bill of Rights - has any truth to it either.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to suggest that "Trump or the Republicans" qualify as "real conservatives" or "constitutionalists"?

Sorry, but that ship sailed long ago. It disappeared over the horizon with Trump's "declaration of emergency". All the "real conservative constitutionalists" voted against that, and it turned out there weren't enough of them to override his veto. Sad.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Ladies and gentlemen... I give you.. The brainwashed leftist shill!

*gasps and applause*

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[Anonymous Coward]

666 doesn't mean what everyone thinks it does

Also, I agree with the above. If you look back at the days of Spanish Inquisition, it's kind of what's happening again (never really stopped completely).


We elected Trump, Putin passes this law, and China has a forever president (another term for dictator).


Authoritarianism is on the rise, and double speak is everywhere. It's actually quite disturbing...

nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't really 'insult' 'important' people anywhere in the world - usa, russia, china - same shit. You can talk unimportant rubbish of course, but say one damaging i mean 'insulting' word and you will see what 'freedom of speech' really means in practice, in theory its:

"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."

Re:nothing new

[Tomahawk]

Is 'freedom of speech' actually entrenched in the laws or constitution in every country?
In the US it wasn't until the first amendment was ratified.

Does it have the same meaning in every country?

Also, does the Government of every country treat it the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:nothing new

[DethLok]

You can egg senators in Australia.
Especially racist bigot senators who got 19 (yes, 19!) votes.
That's pretty insulting.

Video's from multiple angles here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... complete with amusing Aussie commentary.

Eggboi is not pressing charges against the neo-nazi racists who mobbed him, though the police might, and against the senator. And, quite possibly, against Eggboi himself.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech is only in regards to govt action. If you as a private citizen make fake/untruthful accusations against me as a private citizen I am very well within my right to sue you for something like defamation of character and will likely win. Your "freedom of speech" means jack shit when it comes to stuff like that.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition freedom of speech does not apply on the internet when using the services owned by someone else, hence how social media, YouTube, etc can sensor posts. By using said "private service" you are bound by whatever agreement you agreed to for using said services. You are still completely within your right to setup your own online presence and spew whatever BS you like, But if you trample someone else's rights in the process expect a subpoena for a court date.

Re: nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Even after ratifification, it only applied to the federal government. It until the 14th amendment that it changed.

Re:nothing new

[Highdude702]

Well, that is until the data centers get harassed into not letting you use their services, and the same with your payment processors. and well we've seen what really happens when you try to run your own service.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't really 'insult' 'important' people anywhere in the world - usa, russia, china - same shit. ...

USA? "same shit"?

Jesus H. Mother Fucking Christ, you've obviously never paid attention to the shit hurled at Republicans by "progressives" in the US.

Kathy Griffin with Trump's severed head?

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you can do that.

There's the principle of the "public figure" in the US and the EU. So if you're a public figure like a politician, celebrity, or whatever who is in the position to utilize their social status to influence other people, you do not enjoy the same privacy and defamation rights as regular people.

This is to ensure that powerful people can be criticized for their actions and can't abuse their fame and wealth in legal systems that are already stacked in their favor due to their wealth and fame.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

You can egg senators in Australia.
Especially racist bigot senators who got 19 (yes, 19!) votes.
That's pretty insulting.

Video's from multiple angles here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... complete with amusing Aussie commentary.

Eggboi is not pressing charges against the neo-nazi racists who mobbed him, though the police might, and against the senator. And, quite possibly, against Eggboi himself.

he is not a neo nazi by a long shot, although his comentary was out of place and in bad taste. celebrating and condoning the physical assault of an induvidual for talking stupid shit is pretty fucked up and the endorsement of physical violence by our PM is pretty fucked up in of itself.

Re:nothing new

[Nidi62]

You can't really 'insult' 'important' people anywhere in the world - usa, russia, china - same shit. ...

USA? "same shit"?

Jesus H. Mother Fucking Christ, you've obviously never paid attention to the shit hurled at Republicans by "progressives" in the US.

Kathy Griffin with Trump's severed head?

How about the GOP dressing up O'Rouke's 2 decade old drunk driving mugshot to look like a leprechaun for St. Paddy's Day?

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there are obviously still places on the net you can host "objectionable" content. Somehow try as they might the piratebay and multitudes of other questionable sites still exist.

Re: nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we know basic constitutional law and history. Don't act like you even understand this.

Re: nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bill of Rights applies to citizens not the government. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:nothing new

[cascadingstylesheet]

Well, that is until the data centers get harassed into not letting you use their services, and the same with your payment processors. and well we've seen what really happens when you try to run your own service.

Yep, the Democrats (and their pet subset of Republicans) are all in for online censorship. They just get to outsource it.

Re: nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

No, until the ratification of the 14th Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court rulings interpreting it, it was settled law that the Bill of Rights only applied to the actions of the Federal government. That is why most states have a constitution that has an equivalent of the Bill of Rights incorporated into it.

To this day some clauses in the Bill of Rights have not be incorporated against the states. For example, states don't have to use a Grand Jury to indict a defendant, as the Fifth Amendment requires for the Federal Government.

Re: nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, very few people know this. That goes for both sides of the political spectrum in the US.

Re:nothing new

[TuringTest]

Freedom of speech appears in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which act as the "standard" definition for those countries who have adopted it (the US is not among them, BTW).

Re:nothing new

[schwit1]

"How about the GOP dressing up O'Rouke's 2 decade old drunk driving mugshot to look like a leprechaun for St. Paddy's Day?"

There were multiple insults there.
An Irish guy calling himself Beto to get Hispanic votes
A rich guy talking like he understands how the poor feel
A criminal acting like he's a Kennedy (DUI and leaving the scene of the accident)

Re:nothing new

[terrycarlino]

Freedom of speech is the right to express opinions without censorship. Freedom of speech does not include freedom from consequences, as everyone from Thoreau to MArtin Luther King found out.

People in the real world know this, and accept it as one of those natural laws of reality.

Re:nothing new

[Meneth]

It is not, in fact, really part of the constitution of ANY country that I know of.

They all say something like "everyone has freedom of speech..."

"...unless parliament makes a law that restricts it, which they can do for any reason."

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you can show financial damage.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, private companies are exempt.

No, they cannot be considered a necessary public service.

If you want to yell about how Monarch Butterflies were sent by god to tell you that you're right about this whole Pizzagate thing then you can do so in public as long as you are not disturbing the peace or committing other crimes.

Take care, see you on the streets.

Re: nothing new

[c6gunner]

It's a guiding document, not a treaty. I don't think you can say that any countries have "adopted it".

If you can find me a list of countries which have, I would love to see it.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

"harassed"

It's the free-market at work. Deal with it.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

You named yourself after goober tech for retards. There is no threat from russia.

Re:nothing new

[lgw]

You don't have free speech if "hate speech" is banned. Heck, Putin has just effectively relabeled speech against the government as "hate speech". China long ago did the same, but broader, calling any speech that disrupts social harmony "hate speech".

Re: nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Beto literally fled from a drunk driving accident he caused.

Trump has no history like that, despite how desperately you wish that he did. The worst he's done is say some mean words that hurt your feewings.

Re:nothing new

[lgw]

>quote>Freedom of speech is only in regards to govt action. If you as a private citizen make fake/untruthful accusations against me as a private citizen I am very well within my right to sue you for something like defamation of character and will likely win. Your "freedom of speech" means jack shit when it comes to stuff like that.

The ideas are unrelated. I can legally slander you all I want without committing a crime. You can sue me, but you have to show some sort of harm. In the US, you also have to show that what I said was actually false.

But that doesn't mean "Freedom of speech is only in regards to govt action": it's a fundamental right that applies to anyone with the power to control communication.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech appears in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, [wikipedia.org] which act as the "standard" definition for those countries who have adopted it (the US is not among them, [theadvocat...rights.org] BTW).

The U.S. doesn't need to ratify meaningless symbolic gestures. Free speech, Freedom of the press, etc. are already codified into our written Constitution (unlike most of the countries who signed on to that non-binding-trash Declaration).

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always easy to support censorship when your side is the one who gets to censor. Right now, most of the internet giants are located in ultra-liberal Silicon Valley, and staffed almost exclusively by liberals (and a few conservatives keeping their mouths shut in fear). But are you going to still be cool with private censorship if there is another internet bubble collapse and a bunch of rich conservative investors come in and start buying up the remains of all the ISPs and big social media players? Don't kid yourself that it can't happen.

So you might want to consider the Robespierre lesson: The laws and precedents you make today to terrorize your enemies can be turned against you tomorrow.

Re:nothing new

[Highdude702]

No moron it's not the free market. You people have lost your minds.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, private companies are exempt.

No, they cannot be considered a necessary public service.

If you want to yell about how Monarch Butterflies were sent by god to tell you that you're right about this whole Pizzagate thing then you can do so in public as long as you are not disturbing the peace or committing other crimes.

Take care, see you on the streets.

So there's no basis for net neutrality?

Got it.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

>How about the GOP dressing up O'Rouke's 2 decade old drunk driving mugshot to look like a leprechaun for St. Paddy's Day?

That was brilliant. It triggered the libs, who then Striesanded the hell out of it, and now everyone knows Robert Francis O'Rourke is an Irishman, NOT Hispanic, despite his vile attempt at cultural appropriation.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

So you just accept that Martin Luther King's assassination was a "consequence" of his speech, and are okay with that?

Wow, I'm not even sure how to respond to that.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

But the process of making a law includes safeguards and restrictions. Also, the right to property and freedom is also similarly restricted as otherwise we couldn't have criminal punishments in the present form. In the US even the right to life is also a restricted right while almost every country in the world gives their police forces the right to use lethal force in specific circumstances, or that grants that right for the purposes of proportional self-defense to the citizens.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia being a common law country the egging would be simple assault/battery, and the escalation by the others assault/battery, so everyone gets a fine! Judges hate these cases though, so I don't see a prosecutor going forth--maybe if someone does something stupid like press charges.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "choose not to provide services after being petitioned by citizens under the first amendment of the United States Constitution". If you don't like a private company's decision, go elsewhere. If you can't, there is an antitrust problem. You are not, however, entitled to a particular size of audience or to any private company's services, barring prohibited acts of discrimination (N.B. insane political beliefs are not protected).

Back to civics class with all of you.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me when Twitter starts accepting public funds.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It is the free market.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

So you might want to consider the Robespierre lesson: The laws and precedents you make today to terrorize your enemies can be turned against you tomorrow.

Oh, you mean like the last 12 years of GOP obstructionism?

Re:nothing new

[eaglesrule]

Noone expects a free-speech fairy to descend and protect them at all times while they provide contrarian viewpoints. However it is expected that living in a civil and just society that proclaims to uphold the values and principle of free speech, that even unpopular speech would be protected.

Only Antifa or other authoritarian groups use 'no freedom from consequences' as an excuse to justify their barbarism.

It's not an insult...

[Tomahawk]

... if it's true. Many countries have laws around slander and libel -- 'insults' could fit under the same laws, and the defence of them would be similar.

Saying "Putin has a big nose", then, isn't an insult, it's just a fact.

Re:It's not an insult...

[JaredOfEuropa]

Saying "Putin has a big nose", then, isn't an insult, it's just a fact.

Hence the new laws. Pointing out an inconvenient truth about Putin or his cronies might technically not be an insult, but you can be sure it will de deemed "disrespectful to the state" and punished accordingly.

Re:It's not an insult...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ex-Putin Adviser Who Died in U.S. Had Broken Neck, Report Says

The official ruling was that Mikhail Lesin, 57, died accidentally of blunt force trauma after falling repeatedly in his room while intoxicated

https://www.haaretz.com/world-...

Go ahead and insist that you're right.

Re:It's not an insult...

[rudy_wayne]

He was shot 9 times in the back.

Worst suicide I ever saw.

Re:It's not an insult...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think you would get away with it using that argument in a Russian court?

Re:It's not an insult...

[mark-t]

Uh... no.

Insult, by definition, means only to "treat disrespectfully". Veracity is irrelevant.

Insults are subjective, truth is not. What one person considers insulting, another might find amusing or irrelevant.

Re:It's not an insult...

[kiviQr]

Facts can be considered insults - all depends how you say it/your intention. It is up to the court to interpret intention of the speaker. Question who influences the court (rich, media, society, party)? As a side note - fact or not you have violated the law by showing "clear disrespect for society, the state".

Re:It's not an insult...

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's the real intent here - to create a law so vague that it scares the pants out of anyone. The chilling effect from this could be enormous.

This law basically means the state can prosecute you for anything said online if they think it's disrespectful. Now look at our own SJW crowds and try and define what they find as acceptable speech. It's a minefield of obscene levels of political correctness and it has a long reach that can go all the way back in time. We live in an age where saying "Merry Christmas" is frowned on after all.

Clever girls

[stealth_finger]

So they've basically made it so they (the state, the gov, politicians etc) can say anything they want and any one who might question it will be hit with "disrespect for society, the state, the official state symbols of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and bodies exercising state power." and anyone not state sanctioned can be pulled on "unreliable socially significant information". Trump is probably checking to see if he can get away with that one too.

Re:Clever girls

[cascadingstylesheet]

Trump is probably checking to see if he can get away with that one too.

Um, it's literally the Democrats who are going all in for online censorship. They just conveniently have the private sector CEOs of the communications media on their site.

Side, not site. Oh well. A typo clearly means I'm all wrong, lol

Re:Clever girls

[Anonymous Coward]

You're all wrong, but not because of this typo. There is a huge difference between removing items that incite hate (like that video of the Alt-Righter in NZ, or ISIS propaganda, back in the day), and suppressing all critique.

Re:Clever girls

[Freischutz]

Trump is probably checking to see if he can get away with that one too.

Um, it's literally the Democrats who are going all in for online censorship. They just conveniently have the private sector CEOs of the communications media on their site.

Your comment conveniently overlooks Fox News and Sinclair media. Is that because you think they are the only ones who are fair and balanced or do you just not count them as part of the communications media because you think they channel god's word straight into your living room?

Re:Clever girls

[Anonymous Coward]

You're all wrong, but not because of this typo. There is a huge difference between removing items that incite hate (like that video of the Alt-Righter in NZ, or ISIS propaganda, back in the day), and suppressing all critique.

Too damn bad "progressive" are too fragile to see the difference and go right to "suppressing all critique".

Re:Clever girls

[stealth_finger]

Not me dude, luckily he's literally not my president so I couldn't give a shit, but he does seem to be the one with the hurt feelings. Twitter rants all the time because tv people joked and hurt his ickle wickle feelwings :_( Awww whassa matter poor little snowflake? If he can put a stop to people criticising him you know for a fact he'd jump at the chance. It might even over take his wall on the list of things to pretend to be doing.

Re:Clever girls

[Uberbah]

Literal partisan blinders. You think Bill Kristol is a Democrat??

ThinkProgress reports that its traffic from Facebook has been slashed by eighty percent due to a âoefact checkâ by the Weekly Standard which, through a series of moronic mental contortions, found ThinkProgress guilty of reporting fake news about Brett Kavanaugh of all things. In a twist of irony which would be delicious if it weren't so disgusting, the Weekly Standard is one of Facebook's authorized "fact checkers", and happens to be the brainchild of none other than bloodthirsty psychopath and rehabilitated #Resistance hero Bill Kristol.

And gosh, look at all those Republican co-sponsors of the pro-censorship, anti-BDS law. Both wings of of the right wing capitalist war party suck.

Re:Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

Move to Russia if you are fond of government like this, otherwise fuck off. You know eventually the early supporters are cast aside due to the significant power they have. Think of Rhom and Hitler.

Re:Clever girls

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox news, as in the company who just hired the former head of the DNC to try to bring a more balanced view to their reporting?

Re:Clever girls

[Anonymous Coward]

>anyone not state sanctioned can be pulled on "unreliable socially significant information".

Why don't you ask Alex Jones about that comrade?

Re:Clever girls

[e3m4n]

it wasnt the Trump administation that suggested in 2015/2016 that sites like Drudge Report and Infowars be shut down as 'fake news organizations'. When will you guys ever learn that ever sort of 'cheat' you can come up with can be used against you. Everything your complaining about (and im not saying its invalid) has at one time also been used by the other side. Manipulating people with facebook ads? 2012. War on journalism? 2009/2010 by imprisoning journalist who would not reveal their sources. He literally charged them with espionage and treason. In fact the 44th presidential administration has charged more people with treason than every other president combined. I tried to warn you back then, when they were coming up with 'clever' ways to shut down sites like drudge report and infowars, that any bullshit you pull when in power can be used against you later when you aren't. The responsible thing to do would be to prevent _anyone_ from being able to do this shit, but instead we get new ways to weaponize this instead. Those in power just cant resist the opportunity to abuse it instead of killing it outright so that no one can use it again. So next time, before you assume this is new, do a little checking. This POTUS isnt really clever enough to invent this stuff, they just use what has been done before. Its like those commercials for Georgia Pacific "we dont make many of the things you use everyday. We make many of the things you use everyday better". Only in this case, more weaponized. Take the moral high ground and abandon this practice entirely, for the betterment of everyone, not just one party.

Quoting The San Diego Union-Tribune https://www.sandiegouniontribu...

Actually, about Fox News, Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told The New York Times in 2009, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent.”

And in 2013, Leonard Downie Jr., former executive editor of The Washington Post, wrote “the administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration.”

In 2015, James Risen, then a reporter at The New York Times, called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.”

In 2017, in Obama’s last days, The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board echoed the criticism from Downie and Risen and called Obama’s administration “the least transparent and the most antagonistic toward the media since the Nixon administration.” In a nuanced analysis of his eight years, we wrote, “So much for Obama’s promise to lead ‘the most transparent administration in history.’”

Some specifics? Obama’s administration prosecuted three times as many cases targeting whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous administrations combined. It said there was probable cause that a Fox News reporter was a “co-conspirator” in a plot against the U.S. government because of his attempts to gather information about North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. It secretly scoured the phone records of nearly 100 Associated Press reporters and editors for two months, which an editorial in The New York Times characterized as “a fishing expedition for sources and an effort to frighten off whistle-blowers.” And in 2014, according to AP, the Obama administration broke its own record for censoring government files or refusing to provide files sought under the Freedom of Information Act.

Re:Clever girls

[stealth_finger]

Nah but it is trump who keeps wondering out loud what kind of vague consequences there should be for people printing 'fake news' about him. Forget about what other people may have done, or tried to do for a minute, are you honestly telling me you don't think Trump would jump on a chance to shut down criticism of him? Because if you don't let me talk to you about this bridge I have for sale.

Re:Clever girls

[Highdude702]

Who said I was fond of any of it? You people love to shove words in others mouths and them try to berate them for things they didn't say. It seems you would probably be more at home in russia.

Re:Clever girls

[e3m4n]

I think he says a lot of shit, but if he REALLY wanted to do it, he could seriously do the espionage shit that 44 did. I think that his staff intervenes and kills half these ideas before they leave the oval office, which I wish happened under 44. Sometimes I find the timing of his shit to be clever misdirection. While everyone is getting spun up on what he is tweeting, what people should be doing is looking to see what is going on elsewhere. I think he enjoys hearing himself talk. If he actually silenced the media who would mention his name every day? He loves the attention, regardless of what he writes.

Re:Clever girls

[Freischutz]

Fox news, as in the company who just hired the former head of the DNC to try to bring a more balanced view to their reporting?

That's like pouring a shot glass of water into a bottle of vodka and claim you'll no longer get drunk if you empty the bottle over the next half hour.

Re:Clever girls

[Highdude702]

You can claim not you and you don't really care, but then we can actually see your posts and know that you're being dishonest at best. I didn't just start reading comments yesterday.

Re:Clever girls

[terrycarlino]

You mean like the many comments about the kids from Covington Catholic by Verified Twitter users that doxed them and threatened violence? The ones that are still present on their Twitter feeds?

Re:Clever girls

[terrycarlino]

And who have had for years people like Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera and Alan Dershowitz, all Democrats on their channel.

Re:Clever girls

[Anonymous Coward]

And who have had for years people like Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera and Alan Dershowitz, all Democrats on their channel.

Token democrats in an ocean of right wing bile.

Re:Clever girls

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is Fox News or Sinclair trying to censor again?

Re:Clever girls

[Freischutz]

Who is Fox News or Sinclair trying to censor again?

WTF are you talking about?

Re:Clever girls

[Anonymous Coward]

it wasnt the Trump administation that suggested in 2015/2016 that sites like Drudge Report and Infowars be shut down as 'fake news organizations'. When will you guys ever learn that ever sort of 'cheat' you can come up with can be used against you. Everything your complaining about (and im not saying its invalid) has at one time also been used by the other side. Manipulating people with facebook ads? 2012. War on journalism? 2009/2010 by imprisoning journalist who would not reveal their sources. He literally charged them with espionage and treason. In fact the 44th presidential administration has charged more people with treason than every other president combined. I tried to warn you back then, when they were coming up with 'clever' ways to shut down sites like drudge report and infowars, that any bullshit you pull when in power can be used against you later when you aren't. The responsible thing to do would be to prevent _anyone_ from being able to do this shit, but instead we get new ways to weaponize this instead. Those in power just cant resist the opportunity to abuse it instead of killing it outright so that no one can use it again. So next time, before you assume this is new, do a little checking. This POTUS isnt really clever enough to invent this stuff, they just use what has been done before. Its like those commercials for Georgia Pacific "we dont make many of the things you use everyday. We make many of the things you use everyday better". Only in this case, more weaponized. Take the moral high ground and abandon this practice entirely, for the betterment of everyone, not just one party.

Quoting The San Diego Union-Tribune https://www.sandiegouniontribu...

Actually, about Fox News, Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told The New York Times in 2009, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent.”

And in 2013, Leonard Downie Jr., former executive editor of The Washington Post, wrote “the administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration.”

In 2015, James Risen, then a reporter at The New York Times, called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.”

In 2017, in Obama’s last days, The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board echoed the criticism from Downie and Risen and called Obama’s administration “the least transparent and the most antagonistic toward the media since the Nixon administration.” In a nuanced analysis of his eight years, we wrote, “So much for Obama’s promise to lead ‘the most transparent administration in history.’”

Some specifics? Obama’s administration prosecuted three times as many cases targeting whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous administrations combined. It said there was probable cause that a Fox News reporter was a “co-conspirator” in a plot against the U.S. government because of his attempts to gather information about North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. It secretly scoured the phone records of nearly 100 Associated Press reporters and editors for two months, which an editorial in The New York Times characterized as “a fishing expedition for sources and an effort to frighten off whistle-blowers.” And in 2014, according to AP, the Obama administration broke its own record for censoring government files or refusing to provide files sought under the Freedom of Information Act.

This site just proves how much people hate each other and are not willing to even try to work together.

Re:Clever girls

[Anonymous Coward]

He asked you a question. You seem to be unable to answer.

The accusation was that "the left" is all for censorship, and they have large media companies on their side, presumably to do the dirty work of censoring people/things the left doesn't like.

You bring up Fox News and Sinclair, implying that they are supporting censorship for the right.

So it's quite reasonable and relevant to ask just who or what exactly are Fox News and Sinclair (and by extension the right) trying to censor? What people/ideas are so anathema to the right that they desire it to be hidden?

I know the right will yell and scream at topics like climate change and feminism and any kind of social welfare, but I don't think many are calling for a complete shut down of the debate or preventing people from talking about them (if anything, letting people talk gives the right wing more opportunities to ramble off)

I will also add something the other AC didn't: two wrongs don't make a right. It really doesn't matter if Fox/Sinclair/the right censors too. It doesn't make censorship a good thing. If anything, it (and Putin's latest move) is a demonstration that you shouldn't want censorship: you might like it when your side is in power, but imagine when your enemies wield that same power against you.

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

Shut the fuck up whiny bitch. You voted for Trump which to me is just as bad as voting for the pants suited one.

Re:Clever girls

[Freischutz]

He asked you a question. You seem to be unable to answer.

The accusation was that "the left" is all for censorship, and they have large media companies on their side, presumably to do the dirty work of censoring people/things the left doesn't like.

You bring up Fox News and Sinclair, implying that they are supporting censorship for the right.

So it's quite reasonable and relevant to ask just who or what exactly are Fox News and Sinclair (and by extension the right) trying to censor? What people/ideas are so anathema to the right that they desire it to be hidden?

I know the right will yell and scream at topics like climate change and feminism and any kind of social welfare, but I don't think many are calling for a complete shut down of the debate or preventing people from talking about them (if anything, letting people talk gives the right wing more opportunities to ramble off)

I will also add something the other AC didn't: two wrongs don't make a right. It really doesn't matter if Fox/Sinclair/the right censors too. It doesn't make censorship a good thing. If anything, it (and Putin's latest move) is a demonstration that you shouldn't want censorship: you might like it when your side is in power, but imagine when your enemies wield that same power against you.

He was implying that the entire media in the US is a gigantic left wing cabal whose news output is censored by the Democratic party, the world communist conspiracy and what else? ... the Zionist occupied government? Furthermore, the only exceptions to this are the brave souls at Sinclair media and Fox News who are the only purveyors of truly uncensored, fair and balanced new and generally just truth in the entire US media landscape. If you believe that I've got a big iron tower in Paris I'd like to sell you. I think the main stream media except Sinclair Media and Fox News has a certain centre left of Ann Coulter bias (or censorship as you call it), just like Sinclair Media and Fox News has a distinct extreme right of Ann Coulter bias (or censorship as you call it). The only difference between Fox News/Sinclair Media and the MSM as you on the far right like to call them, is that they pump their biased news sewage into different echo chambers.

Re: Clever girls

[Highdude702]

lol come to vegas and call me a bitch, lil keyboard warrior. but glad you proved my point. youre so smart you could have at least tried to insult me intelligently. nope, let the 12 year old come out in you. glhf

Re:Clever girls

[Mashiki]

Fox and Sinclair are two separate companies for one thing. There's shady shit at Sinclair because they own a large swath of small broadcasters. You'll find most conservatives are as much against that as Disney now holding 40% of the box office. The second, about news output being censored by the democrat party isn't a conspiracy. I'm guessing you missed all the crap out of wikileaks a few years ago, where reporters at nearly every major political and news organization except Fox, were publishing democrat talking points or the reporters were forwarding news articles to the DNC and allowing them to "massage" the information to make sure it wouldn't hurt the party, or Hillary's chances(never mind that they were doing the same for the Obama administration). NBC, CBS, ABC, Politico, The Hill, Washington Post, USA Today, and so on all had reporters directly communicating with one political party and only one.

Then we can get into Journolist. If you forgot, that was the private mailing list where journos would massage talking points and collude to publish stories with small changes across multiple sites to "influence messaging" as it were.

Re:Clever girls

[stealth_finger]

lol he hasn't hurt my feelings, how could he? I'm not American so his stupidity has no effect on me, except in the wider global sense maybe but then no more so than his best buddy Putin or any one else. That doesn't mean I can't post and point out that he's a fucking idiot and everything he says is grade A bullshit. There's a big difference between taking the piss out of someone and being offended by them. Let me say this again, Trump is a fucking joke and he is making America look really, really bad from an outsiders view. That isn't even the point though, all I said about was that I think he would jump on the chance to shut down criticism of himself, do you not think he would? Do you think he has shown himself to be open to that kind of thing in the way that you would expect a president to be and previous ones have been?

Re:Clever girls

[stealth_finger]

I think he enjoys hearing himself talk. If he actually silenced the media who would mention his name every day? He loves the attention, regardless of what he writes.

That's true. I think he'd probably rather people complaining about him than saying nothing at all.

Re:Clever girls

[Anonymous Coward]

He was implying that the entire media in the US is a gigantic left wing cabal whose news output is censored by the Democratic party, the world communist conspiracy and what else? ... the Zionist occupied government?

Who was? I was responding to your response to that other AC who simply asked "Who is Fox News or Sinclair trying to censor again?"

Unless you have evidence otherwise, that other AC (and myself, btw) is not cascadingstylesheet from further above.

In other words, all the AC said was that one question. I don't see how you can get all that from that one question.

Furthermore, the only exceptions to this are the brave souls at Sinclair media and Fox News who are the only purveyors of truly uncensored, fair and balanced new and generally just truth in the entire US media landscape. If you believe that I've got a big iron tower in Paris I'd like to sell you

As above, you're talking about things that neither I nor the other AC mentioned. Not only is that a strawman, the polarizing language you use also makes it appear to be a false dilemma (e.g characterizing Fox/Sinclair as "brave souls", presumably sarcastically, with no room for nuance)

bias (or censorship as you call it)

No, not "as I call it". That's a false equivalence. Bias and censorship are not the same things.

Which means you still haven't answered the question: who or what is Fox/Sinclair trying to censor? I'm honestly interested to hear an answer, which is why I replied to you in the first place (AC asked you a question, you expressed confusion, so I came in trying to explain to you the question, like I'm still doing now)

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

LOL, an anonymous poster challenging another one. Ohhhh so tough and scary!!! Youâ(TM)re a retard.

Re:Clever girls

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter rants all the time because tv people joked and hurt his ickle wickle feelwings :_( Awww whassa matter poor little snowflake?

I just cant bring myself to join the side that uses such shit insults.

Re: Clever girls

[Highdude702]

how am I an anonymous user? Also wouldn't be the first time I posted my address to some keyboard warrior here.

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

Go ahead and verify who you are.

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

Still waiting for you to verify your identity.

Re: Clever girls

[Highdude702]

7230 s las vegas blvd. leave a message when you get here.

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

That isn't an identity now is it? Shit stain.

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

That isn't an identity now is it shit stain?

Re: Clever girls

[Highdude702]

Come get it. Youre the one talking all tough behind the keyboard. You know where i live now. See you soon?

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

That isnâ(TM)t your complet address tough guy. Verify it. That is a complex. A shitty one at that. You pay $2k to really rent at a shithole? Looks like losers paradise. But nothing youâ(TM)ve done proves that is your address or who you are shit stain

Re: Clever girls

[Highdude702]

Still don't see you. And who are you to judge me?

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

Giving out an address to an apartment complex proves nothing. It shows you for what you are, an anonymous internet blowhard. Youâ(TM)re a retard, have fun with your retard life where you pretend you are more than you are. You canâ(TM)t try to act like you are tough and asking people to visit you without giving out your identity and location. So post your name and full address and show the world just how macho you are.

Re: Clever girls

[Highdude702]

yea, because I'm the one saying stupid shit here. have fun being old and bitter. I'm sure your wife loves you. And I don't feel like having my door kicked in by cops because of someone like you. so, let me know when you're here and I will meet you out side. OR stfu and stay sitting in your chair like you were going to do anyways.

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

LOL, right kid, right. I'm not old and bitter, go back and look at this thread. You started with the come visit me. What kind of retard thinks someone will drive to visit someone from an anonymous back and forth? Had the same experience on Fox News too, almost the exact same modus operandi just a different geographic location. So 2 for 2 on Trump supporters trying to pick anonymous fights with generalized locations and no contact info. You are a punk, you know it. You are not so tough and mighty you are the keyboard warrior. You actually think you're taunts mean something. An anonymous turd's taunts mean nothing. Try actually thinking.

Re: Clever girls

[Highdude702]

I see, typical liberal, hurl insults then blame the person you're hurling insults at for being the aggressor. This is why people are running from you guys. And I support trump because he has shown the true colors of people like you. Can't even be honest with their self, let alone someone else.

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

So anonymous turd... I voted party line libertarian. Look back. I lump you with the voters of the pantsuited one. Anonymous tough guy turd.

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

And that Trump support comment doesnâ(TM)t follow.

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

And for being all for Trump and his love of Putin, have you kept up on what Putin has done in Venezuela? Suddenly Trump doesnâ(TM)t talk tough on Venezuela. He said he warned them previously but no tough rhetoric when they put people on the ground there. Gotta save that for important things like Jussie Smollett. Of course this is a guy that says we have to get out of Syria but implies we will send troops to Columbia in support of possible Venezuela action , mixed foreign policy there.

Re: Clever girls

[Highdude702]

Get triggered much? lol

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

Way to engage. Keep playing the victim card kid, just like a good partisan.

Re: Clever girls

[Highdude702]

you started 1 name calling, 2 brought politics into it, 3 crazy ranting. yet in the partisan one. how about your old ass goes and looks into a mirror and stops accusing others of being you.

Re: Clever girls

[SocietyoftheFist]

The original poster had a well thought out response to the new Russian laws. He pointed out that Trump, being a lover of authoritarian rulers, was probably looking to enact laws like this. He has talked about making it easier to claim libel and defamation. You can in with your whine and called them a moron. It is there for you to read. You name called. You canâ(TM)t address points. You try to act like a tough keyboard warrior. Youâ(TM)re a shitty little lazy punk. You will never see success with your current victim mentality.

Online Gaming?

[TAz00]

Would be sweet with less cyka blyat rush b....

The second North Korea

[SurenEnfiajyan]

I am so glad that I no longer live in Russia since the age of 3-4 years, though its my birthplace.

Re:The second North Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

You ever see that skit where the soldiers begin to question if maybe they're the bad guys? Welcome to the USA...

Re:The second North Korea

[dunkelfalke]

Amen to that. I can speak Russian more or less fluently, but I most certainly won't visit Russia any time soon.

Re:The second North Korea

[SurenEnfiajyan]

Welcome to the USA...

I live in Armenia.

Re:The second North Korea

[kaur]

Why not?
Visiting countries whose regimes you don't approve is mutual good for many reasons.
The citizens there get a small breath of fresh air & thinking from you, and you see a warning example to avoid at home.

I have been to Russia many times, and will most probably visit it again, censorship and Putin or not.

Re:The second North Korea

[dunkelfalke]

Too much potential hassle I really don't need. I've been to Russia a couple of times myself, but that was in the eighties when my selection of places to visit was seriously limited by the government.

Re:The second North Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

lucky you.

Re:The second North Korea

[tehcyder]

Welcome to the USA...

I live in Armenia.

It's spelled AMERICA, pal.

Re:The second North Korea

[stealth_finger]

The citizens there get a small breath of fresh air & thinking from you,

I'm sure the locals love it when you turn and tell them how shitty their system is and how they just need to make a few simple changes to fix everything,

Re:The second North Korea

[Rick Schumann]

In my opinion, it's more like 'Soviet Union 2.0' than it is 'PRNK 2.0'. Putin does come from the Cold War era after all.

Re: The second North Korea

[TimMD909]

Armenia? Cool name for a state. I live in a different state called 'denial'. The weather's great here. I think...

Re:The second North Korea

[zlives]

in Soviet Russia.., o fuck who cares. we all deserve the leaders we get.

Re: The second North Korea

[shanen]

I wish I could give you that other funny mod point you deserve. I think...

Re:The second North Korea

[Freischutz]

Welcome to the USA...

I live in Armenia.

It's spelled AMERICA, pal.

Armenia is a Russian protectorate, Putin is now very angry with you due to your shameless attempt to annex a part of mother Russia into the American empire. You might want to avoid drinking any tea or touching a door knob without wearing rubber gloves from now on.

Re:The second North Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a really shitty fucking attitude, you sound like a goddamned coward, and of course lilly-livered yellow-bellied cowards get what they deserve.

Does this cover everything OUTSIDE Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ironic, isn't it? Russia is fully behind all the fake-news and flooding chats with misinformation. But are bloggers in the U.S. suddenly going to start disappearing in the night after saying something bad about Pootie Poot? Oh wait, a van just pulled up in front of the house and someone is kicking in the door, be right back....

Re:Does this cover everything OUTSIDE Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only ironic for people who believed that Putin isn't a bad guy. If you were aware of that, this move is only consequential.

Disclaimer: Putin is not the bad guy. There's plenty others of them. But he is among some of the worse scumbags.

Don't give Trump any ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald: I want that too. And SNL is in there too.

Re:Don't give Trump any ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

No worry, the left already censors youtube, twitter, facebook. Why have government do it when unelected rich farts can?

So basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Tim Berners-Lee's plan.

Does he think he is Mohammed?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck? Next he'll be preaching that all Christians and Jews should be killed if they will not convert to Islam.

Someone needs to draw a dick on his forehead when he is passed out, take him down a peg or two and bring him closer to the real world. Permanent marker dick on the forehead would be a good start.

Re:Does he think he is Mohammed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Putin isn't Stalin. He does not enjoy a power as absolute as Stalin had. He has to come by with different resources at his disposal and needs the occasional ally here and there. Subsequently he embraced the Russian Orthodox Church as such an ally. He backs them up and they wash his back.

Therefore it's unlikely that he will go after Christianity.

Jews are a different topic however.

Russian state funded media likes to crap on Israel. And remember when Putin blamed Goldman Sachs for the Panama Papers and being behind the German newspaper who published the stories first? Of course the retracted that statement later and even apologized. But the idea that the "Jews" are behind bad things still stuck. And you can bet that Putin knew that.

New Zealand

[Kunedog]

No post on NZ's internet (and more) censorship?

Re:New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

No and you know why.

Russia hasn't caught up to commonwealth and continental censorship even with this legislation, but we consider our way good and their way bad because we are the 'us' and they are the 'them.'

Re:New Zealand

[Highdude702]

Of course not, that's good censorship.

Re:New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the post made to distract you. Sadly (for the future of mankind), this strategy works very well, because most people are dumb as rocks.

Re:New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

That post was intended to introduce nuance in the discussion. Same difference for some people, I know.

Re:New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

So you would feel exactly the same if we discussed New Zealand and someone brought up what happens in Russia?

Then it would not be some kind of suspicious distraction from the issue that only contributes the messed up Russia bashing in Western media?

Re:New Zealand

[L. J. Beauregard]

Look! Over there! Something shiny!

Re:New Zealand

[TimothyHollins]

If you cannot see the difference between removing a specific video where people were recently murdered and state-wide oppression of even verbal opposition, I pity you.

Re:New Zealand

[Maelwryth]

I assume you are referring to the video of the shootings in New Zealand? The censorship on those is both pretty bloody justified and pretty bloody useless. It is justified in that the people being killed were people with families and children. People who loved them who shouldn't have to see their last moments of pain and terror. It is justified because the victims shouldn't have to see (if they survived) their own pain and terror being used to promote the agenda of the criminal. It is also justified because the people who watched and shared it didn't have the empathy to not watch and not share. There are some exceptions to this such as it being news, etc....but in general people could understand what had happened without having to see it and pass it on for kicks.

It is pretty bloody useless because the censorship failed miserably and probably made the video more popular with people being more reluctant to take it down due to the fact they were being censored. It also hides the problem. Censorship shouldn't be needed. We should be able to control our little masturbatory emotions and think before watching and sharing it. I think Plato said, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." And there are some broken people in the world so the government censors content because some people can't. I don't want people to watch me gasping out my last terrified breaths because of somebody else's mental illness. Some other people might, but that isn't something wrong with me, that's something wrong with them.

The people who knowingly watched the video, even worse shared it, or (even worse) enjoyed it need to sit down and think about who they are. If they don't feel horrified then possibly they should call a helpline to see if they need help (Warning: there are trackers on the Healthline page. Use tor).

Re:New Zealand

[Maelwryth]

That being said, I too would like to see a post on the technical aspects of the censorship. There are some interesting links here but although they list some of the sites censored there isn't a full list as far as I can find nor a breakdown of the methods that were used to do it. It might be an interesting insight into how far the intelligence services have managed to get their claws into our country. They have the legal platform now thanks to the #Labnats but what are their technological capabilities and/or do they even care.

Re:New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's the fault of that little 11-year-old Swedish girl that died. And then a gun-loving 28-year-old Aussie saw that in the news. So it's actually the news channel's fault for sending tear-droppers and disturbing the peace of the young ones.

Re:New Zealand

[tehcyder]

Censorship shouldn't be needed. We should be able to control our little masturbatory emotions

Yes, well by that argument we shouldn't need any laws of any description, then everyone could just voluntarily be nice to each other all the time, and we oculd all live in the best of all possible worlds.

Re:New Zealand

[Maelwryth]

Yes. It was a perfect world comment.

Re:New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because blocking a live video of a first person massacre intended to encourage essentially a world war and blocking any and all information critical of a brutal dictatorship are totally the same. Your slippery slope has a mountain in the middle of it.

Re:New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cannot see a state which has the power and will to prevent the public from seeing evidence of a terrorist attack as being oppression, I pity us all.

"Unreliable socially significant information"

[Anonymous Coward]

It would certainly be a good thing if media companies could be held accountable for publishing twitter rumors as if they were undeniable fact. I'm not certain that the law will actually be applied in this way, however.

Re:"Unreliable socially significant information"

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but this is a one way street.

Re:"Unreliable socially significant information"

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally they can get those bastard sons of dogs at the troll factories! Wait..wrong selection of insults for the target country.

Re:US

[Anonymous Coward]

You had proof 2 years ago so why the investigation for 2 years? how many people do you need to lock for forgetting a email?
Just fucking lock him up for the crime of being smarter that the corporate media and Hillary(the saint)Clinton.
I am curious now that the democrats are a fractured mess will it be Putin who wins the election for Trump Again?
Clearly Putin controlled American voters with his epic $105,000 worth of childish adds 56% of which ran after the election and 25% were never seen by anyone vs Hillary's record 2 billion dollar election machine.
Hillary is the first candidate in history who should have won an election without bothering to campaign.
I find your elections very amusing.

Insults against Putin himself can be punished

[Anonymous Coward]

What a dick move.

That'll be helpful for sooting down civ jetliners

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, it's not every day you get a free hand to shoot down whatever you want with buk missiles, and get to cover it up legally.

Well done Russia! Thank fuck I don't live there.

Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is straight-up statist/authoritarianism that any Socialist/"progressive" would be proud of.

Or have you missed who's going around the US saying crap like "speech is violence" and actually institutionalizing methods to shut down dissenting voices to the point it has a fucking Wikipedia page? And to hell with free speech?

Who calls ideas they don't like "hate speech"?

Hint: it ain't Trump.

Hell, even Chelsea Clinton gets attacked by "progressive" bigots for daring to speak against anti-Semitism.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[dunkelfalke]

Both Putin and Erdogan, who sign these kinds of laws, are as right wing as it is possible to be without completely crossing the line to fascism.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both Putin and Erdogan, who sign these kinds of laws, are as right wing as it is possible to be without completely crossing the line to fascism.

Why do leftists feel such a need to label an actual Communist such as Putin "right wing"?

Get this: Socialism simply can not exist without authoritarian statism - socialism is based on authoritarian statism. How the hell can "the people" wind up "owning the means of production" if they don't fucking TAKE it?

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guessing by your name you're German?

What Germans understand as "Right Wing" does not mean the same that Americans or English understand as "Right Wing".

For you Germans "Right Wing" means nationalistic and authoritarian, but does not describe their perspective on economics that much. Here the Right Wing may be capitalistic or socialistic.

In the US however Right Wing first and foremost describes their perspective on economics, which is capitalistic. While nationalism may be common among Right Wingers, authoritarianism is not. For example you've got your Right Wingers in the US who are in favor of a small government that is rather powerless.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because i remember Hillary & Obama constantly railing on "fake news" and having their rally participants attack reporters.

Totally a Democrat thing.

-eyeroll-

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[dunkelfalke]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Communism isn't just a placeholder for "policies I personally don't like", it has a reasonably clear definition. And by this definition Putin is most certainly not a communist.
Even going by the standards of the late CPSU Putin would not be a communist, but a reactionary and an enemy of the people.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[dunkelfalke]

All these "small government" right wingers you are talking about only pay lip service to this ideal. In reality they make the government larger whenever they are in charge.

It is not that different in Germany where we have our own comparable politicians, like Dirk Niebel for example, who promised to close the ministry of economic cooperation and development before being elected and appointed as the minister of that ministry. He quickly hired a lot of additional staff (members of his party, of course) and increased the budget of that ministry quite a bit.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[L. J. Beauregard]

Public Service Announcement: The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say.

It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it.

The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.

If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show cancelled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.

It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because i remember Hillary & Obama constantly railing on "fake news" and having their rally participants attack reporters.

Totally a Democrat thing.

-eyeroll-

You had your head up your ass, then.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because i remember Hillary & Obama constantly railing on "fake news" and having their rally participants attack reporters.

Totally a Democrat thing.

-eyeroll-

Democrats routinely attack reporters. They tend to do it with the aims of "deplatforming" them, ensuring that they are no longer able to report, by convincing companies to stop advertising with them, convincing social media sites to stop hosting their content, and convincing the companies that hire them to fire them.

Censorship is literally a progressive value.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really sad about this is, you post this as a response to somebody pointing out the left is attacking Chelsea Clinton for speaking against antisemitism. Wow. Just wow. Yes, she must be punished for saying bigotry is bad!

https://xkcd.com/137/

Yeah, it is sad how authoritarian he got, isn't it. But then again, I guess there's a reason they call it the regressive left for a reason. Better to regress back to when freedom of speech wasn't an ideal held up by western society (note I said society, not government). Lets forget the times when a person could dare to say something controversial without have to worry about their lives being ruined for daring to say it.

I'm going to be honest, people like you scare the hell out of me far more than anything coming from even the most horrid things coming from the right these day. But you charge on because you know you're "correct" and you "know better". It's terrifying.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Rolgar]

I absolutely agree, except, all of this is being done with the approval of one side of the political spectrum:

1. Government money is being spent on 'education' (mild brain washing) to support this same side of the political spectrum creating a half generation of society that beleives liberty is a lie, and they've been oppressed. (If they are, they should flee to Europe where real freedom reigns if that's what they believe.)
2. The media is supporting this side of the political spectrum by covering up lies and scandals while condemning 10 times as offen for lesser offenses from the other side as well as fabricating false charges against a president that isn't taking their BS, so they start falsely accusing him of obstruction when he's only protecting himself against conspiracies to remove him from office for false charges.
3. These individuals are forcing authors to change their stories to match leftist morality. This is censorship of a most evil kind because those on the right have very important ideas that created the very society they live in.
4. If they don't like what's on the radio or Fox News, there are other channels they can listen to. The very ideas they are attacking were mainstream and acceptable 10 years ago, and they are only promoting these ideas in order to gain control of the government and erradicate the opposition and turn them into slaves through government tyranny.

Of course, once the leftists enshirine their ideas, and make dissent unacceptable, they will establish themselves as the elite, and the oppressed will have no way out, then will be when they should be shouting, not for more government, but less, and not for leftist thought control but freedom of thought, action, association, and commerce. But it may be too late because the brain washing in liberal states schools will not be rolled back.

I've come to the conclussion that those who agree with the constitution and traditional values should seperate from the states who want to reject the freedoms that built the US government, because the left is on a path that can only result in tyranny or civil war, and only letting them have their way in a seperate country will make them happy.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[drinkypoo]

Both Putin and Erdogan, who sign these kinds of laws, are as right wing as it is possible to be without completely crossing the line to fascism.

What? They have sham elections, they disappear dissenters and journalists, they've criminalized free speech, and you don't think it's fascism?

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism isn't just a placeholder for "policies I personally don't like", it has a reasonably clear definition.

Neither is "right wing".

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets try for some logical consistency:
"If you get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated"
So, then doesn't that mean that Twitter as a private corporation was fully in the legal right,
and Devin Nunes' suit is baseless?
Nunes suing Twitter

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, you know full well that if things were different, if the left would get censored by corporations, you'd sing a very different tune.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not speaking against "anti-semitism", it's calling criticism of Israel "anti-semitism"

Taking a side on the Israel / Palestinian issue is not anti-semitism regardless what side you take (they are all Semites).

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember Trump saying he wanted to loosen up libel laws and make it easier for him to sue anyone who says anything negative about him?

The fat, orange bastard salivates at the idea of being able to suppress his critics. He's said repeatedly that he admires the strength of various dictators around the world. He's told his supporters to knock the crap out of protestors at his rallies and even went so far to say he'd cover legal costs.

Hint: it fucking is Trump.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[stealth_finger]

Who calls ideas they don't like "hate speech"?

Hint: it ain't Trump.

No, he calls it fake news.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[stealth_finger]

Democrats routinely attack reporters. They tend to do it with the aims of "deplatforming" them, ensuring that they are no longer able to report, by convincing companies to stop advertising with them, convincing social media sites to stop hosting their content, and convincing the companies that hire them to fire them.

Censorship is literally a progressive value.

Yeah and then they go on to burn their nikes and destroy their coffee machines....wait a sec. Free speech has consequence and if you are using yours to spew hate don't be surprised when people stop listening.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're technically correct, which means you're a snarky asshole full of sound and fury but signifying little.

Freedom of speech is a concept that stretches well beyond the the United States' first amendment.

If you're having your show cancelled, your rights, under the US Constitution, are not being violated - but there's a pretty good chance that you're dealing with reprehensible fucks dreaming of goosesteps.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a moron if you think the government isn't also participating in the censorship of free speech. You can't even wear a Trump hat into a school because it is "hate speech". Forgetting that it is ridiculous to consider the fucking sitting president's hat as "hate speech", regardless of what you think of him: This is GOVERNMENT ENFORCED CENSORSHIP. This is not private parties choosing to not do business with you. This is government funded and mandated/restricted speech. Luckily kids are smarter then you might think and all you moron liberals are doing is breeding a generation of kids that wonder what fucking stick the adults have up their asses.

I'm sure liberals would totally agree to banning wearing clothing that had Obama's name/slogans on it like they have Trumps name/slogans.

The government has ruled that "hate speech" is a thing, which is inherently anti-free speech because WHO gets to determine what "hate speech" is? Whoever gets to decide what "hate speech" is gets to censor whoever they wish. Simple as that. I think it is hate speech to call the president a racist... see how this works.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[terrycarlino]

Here you have mistaken Republican for Conservative. Not all Republicans are Conservative. Trump for example is not very Conservative. For that matter neither was John McCain or Mitt Romney.

The majority of Republicans, while being right wing, are not particularly conservative. They don't believe in small government, nor are they particularly fiscally conservative, hence the increasing budget.

Cute sig by the way. Entirely tribal propaganda, but cute.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[L. J. Beauregard]

1. Stop being a drama queen. You. Are. Not. Being. Oppressed.
2. Donald Trump is a liar, a crook, a thief, a con artist, a loudmouth braggart phony and the very model of a toxic boss. He has been these things IN PUBLIC for decades longer than the Evil Liberal Deep State Fake News Mainstream Media has had any reason to care about his politics. Now he starts whistling all the Fascist dog whistles and suddenly he's the Messiah.
3. Which "traditional values" are you talking about? The one that says the wifey should be barefoot and pregnant? That the cullud people should know their place? That the Feelthy Queers need to remain in the closet? That I'd better see you in church bright and early Sunday morning OR ELSE?
4. Again: When tyranny comes to America, it will be the Fourth of July every day, not black helicopters, and YOU will be on the tyrant's side.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[terrycarlino]

The problem here being that it only takes a small, noisy, activist group to scare advertisers enough to ban just about anybody. Be a big enough asshole and advertisers, who quite frankly just don't want to deal with the noisy minority will dump you, so social media bans you.

twitter banned a liberal feminist fro misgendering. This is becoming not just a right verses left problem.

In the U.S. social media is protected like the post office. They have no responsibility for what is carried on their platforms. If they want to edit like publishers, then conversely they should be treated like publishers and made responsible for all that is published on their platform. They shouldn't have it both ways.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door.
The people being "assholes" and "being shown the door" are all too often perfectly level headed speakers who are simply against being openly racist against whites, or don't think it's a good idea to embrace socialism, or believe that there's some merit to the psychological science of gender roles. The people "showing them the door" are seemingly incarnate specters of Godwin's law, who immediately go for the "Nazi" insult and beat speakers with sticks. These people aren't afraid to lie to push their narrative. That's how a group of pro-life kids who were standing around waiting for the bus got spun into being the embodiment of racism in a four minute clip, when the full length version clearly shows the accusations were straight up lies.

This should terrify you no matter what your beliefs are, as long as you're sound of mind. It's a classic case of "first they came for x...". People should NOT be deplatformed for simply disagreeing with the more reactionary half of the country. We've seen what allowing such behavior has gotten for societies through history.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gah. I will suggest that you have been massively mis-educated.

The 'progressive' left actually read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and noticed it was a government BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE and for LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (self-actualization).

Have you actually read 'Common Sense'? Please re-read. And note please that Thomas Paine was the first to suggest that we needed an Educated Populace, Social Security AND a Living Wage in order to sustain a Democracy.

The ultra-rich now have more votes than you do, more speech than you do, more happiness than you do, and more control of government than you do.

The 8 years that Obama held on to power was an accident. Too many people came out and voted, it upset their calculations. They are now attempting to address that issue, and put the final lock in place.

This is the true battle. The battle for control of the levers of power by the people, not the international jet-set wealthy top .1% who currently control our country and our world. We need to take our Country back. Really, this time.

Does this sound familiar to you? That's because they are saying this exact thing to trick you, but you are on the wrong side. I need to ask: Have they actually done anything for your liberty now that they have power??

They have:
- Cancelled Net Neutrality
- Raised your taxes (TRUTH!) and given the wealthy a gigantic tax break.
- Done nothing to change International Trade. Rebranded an existing bill (NAFTA) and made it weaker and worse
- Angered Democracies around the world, you know, the Countries who have politicians that actually represent their people
- Change laws to make your air dirtier, water dirtier, world hotter
- Made the world more dangerous by treating the 'Axis of Evil' as friends. This will unbalance the world and support going to WAR.
- Next, they will go to WAR if they can find a good excuse.
- Next, they will claim they must cut YOUR Social Security (you know, that insurance program you've been paying into your whole life that is supposed to be untouched by the Government) in order to PAY for those tax breaks. And they will cancel your Health Insurance while they're at it.

Do you not get it? WE THE PEOPLE (70% of us) would like Universal Health Insurance. WE THE PEOPLE (70%+) believe everyone should be allowed to vote, and it should be easy to do it. WE THE PEOPLE (70%+) believe we should be taxing the wealthy to repair our crumbling infrastructure.

If this is the Tyranny of the Majority, please sign me up! I would like to be able to self-actualize and Pursue Happiness without having to worry where my next meal is coming from. If my family, having been here for 400 years, can't have that, then what's the ducking point of all this progress? Why am I working so hard if my and my neighbors cannot 'sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid'???

Yes, this is all a trick. A trick played on you, by your own side.

Re: Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently Fox News doesn't like what's on Fox News, they suspended Judge Jeanine.

Listen, I do not believe reality has a left wing bias, I believe that if you keep labeling everything opposed to you as left wing, then reality will start to look that way.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[dunkelfalke]

You do realise that I am German, right?
I don't care how the right wingers call themselves, I just compare what they say with what they do.
As for my signature, it is a nice flamebait, yes.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tyrants try to stop people from being heard.

It is your side trying to shut down discussions.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there are common carrier laws, public accommodation laws and public square laws that extend first amendment principles to private transactions.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[YourMissionForToday]

Get this: Socialism simply can not exist without authoritarian statism - socialism is based on authoritarian statism. I guess that means the Scandinavian socialist countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are authoritarian hellholes, no different from Pol Pot's Cambodia, right?

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything wrong with progressives in point 4: you attack and gain ground but pretend you are on the losing side. You are a predator.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is straight-up statist/authoritarianism that any Socialist/"progressive" would be proud of.

First of all, what private companies do technically has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech, since that is government based. Government can't discriminate. Everyone else you know, you might know, who hosts your content, can.

Now the primary reasons for de-platforming are hate speech and lies. If I was in charge of making a decision for a company I'd want nothing to do with that sludge of evil, and they have every right to have nothing to do with it. You have a right to not do business with those companies.

Don't like that private companies can make such decisions? Well, you could invest more in Government run media, which would require equal time for all sides, but I suspect you don't want that and that you are rather partial to when the right wingers get large megaphones but no cross examination by a serious opposition.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitcoin Cash BCH for the win !!!

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Scroatzilla]

This oversimplication of the First Amendment is wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Essentially, these social media platforms have transformed into the "public square," and censorship on those platforms is a violation of the First Amendment.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Scroatzilla]

>> You. Are. Not. Being. Oppressed.

I often find this particular way of formatting emphasis is attached to superficial babble those who employ it are mindlessly repeating due to the frustration of having only a superficial understanding of points of view they are arguing against. On Twitter, this is often accompanied by hand clap emojis. While telegraphing the intent to convey importance, it is unintentionally comedic.

Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post would be true, except that alternative platforms such as Gab and even independent payment platforms have also been threatened with shut down.

Twitter bans conservative: conservatives move to Gab

Patreon bans conservatives: conservatives make new platforms.

Visa/MasterCard ban these new platforms, banks shut conservative accounts: cryptos get around all bans.

But don't worry, I'm sure the next tactic will totally work out!

Captcha: skirted.

The court jester

[Evtim]

I once read an interesting commentary from a historian. He was discussing the futile attempts of several (rather) competent kings of my country and how every time the state got rich and prosperous they would start some new wars, usually with their eyes fixed on the throne in Constantinople and then ruin the country trying to conquer it...

The scholar then spends a whole chapter of his book on the phenomenon of the court jester and how incredibly useful for a king it was that there is at least one person in the kingdom who can tell the truth to power! Remarking that the only Slavic king to ever have a jester was Peter the Great, who was of course heavily influenced by ideas from Western Europe. The jester survived for two months, after that he was sent to Siberia to tell jokes to the polar bears and the king (tsar actually) never got another one. I noted that not only Slavic tsars but no other ruler apart from the Western kings had a jester....though I think there was something like that in ancient Rome (standup philosopher, hey! Ohh, a professional bulshitter! Did you bulshit anyone last week? Did you TRY bulshitting anyone?)

Anyhow, I always assumed that under democracy, particularly with the aid of the net all of us can be the court jester. And that politicians would be wise enough (dream on!) to realize the usefulness of it...how else would they know (just like kings of old) what are the real concerns and troubles of the people.

Alas, not only everyone outside the West doesn't support telling truth to power; now it is questioned and slowly eroded here as well. From both sides of the political spectrum. Sad!

Re:The court jester

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you are highly incorrect about 'the only Slavic king to ever have a jester'.

Having a jester was a norm in medieval kingdoms of Poland, Czechia, Croatia

Russia is actually quite non-Slavic country with very strong Mongol and authoritharian influence - if you compare with Polish, Ukrainian or Balkan chaos and weak states or Czechs approach to religion - it is Russia that does not fit Slavic state standard.

Re:The court jester

[Anonymous Coward]

Remarking that the only Slavic king to ever have a jester was Peter the Great, who was of course heavily influenced by ideas from Western Europe.

That is not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sta%C5%84czyk And he was only the most famous one, not the only one.

Re:The court jester

[DigiShaman]

Because the truth is absolute when understood objectively with facts. And therein lay the problem. To maintain such foundational values prevents those seeking power from usurping power in an immoral and misbegotten manner. So, reality is warped and distorted to fog objectivity in what otherwise would be an accepted culture of morality and truth. Sadly, the media that can also be a force for good and also be twisted and abused as a same instrument for evil (propaganda).

Essentially the media is a hammer. By itself it does nothing. But depending on who holds it, it can build or destroy.

Re:The court jester

[e3m4n]

whats sad is that we have just two sides of a political spectrum. I dont really agree with either 'side' on a majority of topics. I am a libertarian. So on social issues I tend to be more liberal, as long as it passes the logic test. On fiscal issues I definitely tend to be more conservative, If I am expected to cut expenses and tighten my belt when new costs arise, why cant my government. I am all for letting people fuck their own lives up if it doesn't cause excessive harm to others in the process. I dont think dependence on government is a good thing, it makes you weak and subject to abuses which flies in the face of the liberal idea of standing up to abusers and demanding your rights. Truth itself can be highly subjective, if you ask 100 people what the truth is, your likely to get at least 60 different answers. Flat out silencing people solves nothing. Hell the dark history of mother goose rhymes should have taught people that. What you can do is require people to stop making up 'anonymous' sources. Either go on record or don't quote it. Anonymous sources needs to be replaced with the phrase 'it has been rumored' because that is all it really is. They need to stop teaching our kids to be spoon-fed information and go back to teaching them how to weed through the bullshit, and not in some propaganda sort of way. There are ways to teach this without specifically using news articles as examples. You could do mock simulations of some mystery to unravel based on contradicting testomonies, etc.

Re:The court jester

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesters... EVERY prime minister, every minister, every secretary of state, and every member of parliament should be FORCED to have one while they are in office. With mandatory daily interactions for at least one hour.

Re: The court jester

[mapkinase]

bullshit

At least they're open about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at least they're open about their policies. The Snowden Files revealed that UK & USA has the same policies where they systematically mete out "extrajudicial" (outside the law) action against dissenters. "COINTELPRO II" is alive an well.

Question: Would you rather live in a land with the illusion of free speech where Freedom of Speech is a trap to see if you will dissent and then be covertly suppressed, or would you rather live in a land where the rules of acceptable public speech are known, and you have to make the choice to be in conflict with the state -- rather than think you're exercising the 1st amendment while FISA has sicked its agencies, goons and directed energy weapons upon you?

https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/files/Bioeffects_of_Selected_Non-Lethal_Weapons.pdf - These weapons and more are now being used for Zersetzung in all NATO nations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO - unlawful suppression of women's rights activists, anti-war activists, and civil rights activists. Free Speech? bolw it out your arse! You never had it in your lifetime.

Re:At least they're open about it.

[theM_xl]

Yep, and the EU is already getting on the censoring 'fake news' bandwagon as well, and has already been caught applying 'fake' to 'politically inconvenient' a couple of times...

Re:At least they're open about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

In whataboutism we can trust.

Re:At least they're open about it.

[theM_xl]

No, that would involve thinking that Putin doing it isn't so bad. Instead, given that I live in the EU, excuse me if Putin being open about doing Bad Things sees me worry about our own politicians pulling the same stuff on us. Because they rather joyfully are doing just that. They do seem to intent to be a bit less obvious about it though, given gems such as this: "Through this Communication the Commission seeks to promote a more transparent, trustworthy and accountable online environment (...). More specifically, signatories of the Code of Practice should agree to deprive “impostor” websites and websites hosting disinformation of advertising revenues. The signatories should also agree to (...) the development of indicators of trustworthiness of content sources, dilute the visibility of disinformation by improving the findability of trustworthy content and provide users information on prioritisation of content by algorithms." The only difference is that it might still be stoppable for a time here.

Re:At least they're open about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when the Fake News supports their narrative. That Turkish Terror Attack in the Netherlands was floated as "domestic violence" until it was off the front page of American papers. Now it comes out that he shouted "allahu akbar" and had a bunch of extremist literature in his car, but too late, American libs can safely pretend it didn't happen.

Re:At least they're open about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Putin being open about doing Bad Things?

Does he tell the people that this is a move to consolidate his power by giving him the legal leverage to shut up critics?

Nope, not really. It's all under the guise of protecting the Russian people from the evil that comes from the outside.

It's exactly the same official reasons.

You know, maybe for Russia it will actually bring some improvement. If critics are only shut up by the law instead of being disappeared.

Re:Leftist Propaganda Needs Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Even for around these parts, you’re where it’s not uncommon you take fucked in the head to a new record low level

Unreliable

[mentil]

Of course "unreliable socially significant information" is so nebulous it could refer to any information. 'Unreliable' doesn't even mean the same thing as 'false', it could just meant questionable or controvertible. I expect this to be heavily subject to selective enforcement, so those who make any inconvenient statements can be fined a year's wages to be made an example of. From what I can find, median per-capita income in Russia is ~$6,500/year. Interestingly, their PCI peaked at ~$9,700/yr in 2013, right before the annexation of Crimea and the associated sanctions. I bet the people aren't very happy their income has dropped by a third in the past 6 years.

Re:Unreliable

[Anonymous Coward]

To some degree their living standards have dropped, but you should note that they are converting money from Russian ruble to USD. This means that probably Russia has a harder time importing products that they can't produce themselves. However, they can still buy domestic made alternatives, and the cost shouldn't be too much more, if not cheaper. One should assume that their salaries in ruble are still roughly the same with the same and may have even grown. It's better to look at PPP/capita instead.

Re:Unreliable

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, their PCI peaked at ~$9,700/yr in 2013, right before the annexation of Crimea and the associated sanctions. I bet the people aren't very happy their income has dropped by a third in the past 6 years.

Your view of history is a little short term. Perhaps you should go to https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-per-capita and select the maximum timescale for a better look.

Re: Leftist Propaganda Needs Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Heil Hitlary! The Democratic Party troll farm just put your check in the mail.

Never forget Nazis were leftists too, not alt-right, far-right or any other king of right. That's a FACT libtard.

Trying to stop election interference?

[Anonymous Coward]

So this would make it harder for another nation to do to Russia what Russia did to the US in the last presidential election? Well played.

there

[Anonymous Coward]

Putin sucks cocks.

Sooo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean they're going to shut down RT.com and Sputniknews.com as well?

Signing laws to stop opinions

[Quakeulf]

Is a bitch move.

in soviet russia we publish for you!

[Joe_Dragon]

in soviet russia we publish for you!

Meanwhile in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

Germans choose to link with Russia via a natural gas pipeline, thereby eviscerating the impact of sanctions against Putin and creating a strong dependency on Russia's good graces.

Re:Meanwhile in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

The legacy of the crooked German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. He immediately started to work for Gazprom when he lost power in Germany.

The project flourishes under the currently bad relationship between the US and Germany. Where Trump wants Germany to buy expensive US products while Russia offers cheap gas straight from Putin's ass.

A coward

[Pyramid]

Sound like he needs to make criticism illegal because he's a weak kneed coward.

This is horrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship? In Russia, of all places? Say it isn't so! Whatever will happen to their free speech?

Re:This is horrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech is propaganda of West.

Re: Leftist Propaganda Needs Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

How, then, do you explain the propensity of the alt-right and far-right to wave "leftist" nazi symbols around?

Surprised, anyone?

[OneHundredAndTen]

He remains what he has always been: a KGB thug.

Re:Surprised, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you've done it.

The Great Leap Backwards

[timeOday]

In the late 80's through early 00's, progress seemed inevitable. Now what seems inevitable is decline and backsliding. What happened?

What next?

[The Evil Atheist]

Banning flag burning, or kneeling during the national anthem at a sports game?

Smelly little Putin in a diaper....

[Anonymous Coward]

When my baby has a poopy diaper I usually ask him if he put a little Putin in his diaper.

Just curious would that be illegal under this new rule? I wonder what I'll have to say next when he drops a little stinky Vladimir....

Re:Smelly little Putin in a diaper....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you insulting poop?

People in the west used to ridicule for this

[Roodvlees]

Now, many westeners want the same in their own countries...

Re:People in the west used to ridicule for this

[Anonymous Coward]

They're already executing it. YouTube, Twitter and Facebook just to name a few have been censoring news and users that validate right-of-center views.

Re:People in the west used to ridicule for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate self-censoring of platforms they own and government imposed censorship are VERY different things. To equate them is a disservice to those who have lived under real persecution, rather than imagined persecution.

Re:People in the west used to ridicule for this

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the Turkish thing. But if the fascists or royalists manage to organize again and take over after the Great Patriotic War, we can resort to baking insulting bakery, again. Little supreme leader pies and tarts, for example.

All countries need similar laws!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, internet should/must NOT be a place, where many people keep attacking everyway to everyone on sight, like a pack of rabid dogs, or, trying to manipulate/trick general public anyway they can!!!

So internet censorship is bad now?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the same people, I am sure, who are all up in arms over Putin pushing censorship in Russia have no problem pushing it here.

Re: Leftist Propaganda Needs Censorship

[L. J. Beauregard]

Roight, guv. The Commie Pinko Liberals are all into flags and nationalist bullshit and Nuremberg rallies and military expansion. When they're not burning the flag, Trashin' Are Country and Disrespectin' Are Troops. (Which one of these are we doing this week? My SorosGram got lost in the mail again.) I mean they were the National Socialist German Workers' Party, right?

Pay attention when Ah'm talkin' to ya, son. When tyranny comes to America, it will not be UN troops and black helicopters and Agenda 21. It will be the Fourth of July every single fucking day. And you, Anonymous Coward, will be shouting the Leader's slogans and goose-stepping to the Leader's drums.

Re:Russia hasn't done shit, dipshit

[Anonymous Coward]

True, if Mueller had something, he would have already used it. The collusion thing is most likely made up. And people pretending that there's still something to it are most likely trolls.

However don't let these trolls fool you into becoming an apologist for the Kremlin and getting the feeling that the Kremlin is actually a better friend to you than the political opposition in your own country. Just because there was no collusion it does not mean that the Kremlin didn't do anything in their power to muddy up things. It just means that we shouldn't blame Trump or the GOP for what happened.

Watch and learn kiddies

[terrycarlino]

This is where the west will go if the Identitarian Left has their way.

At least in the United States we have the First Amendment and people on the sane right and left fighting this kind of thing.

Re:Watch and learn kiddies

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it seems the sane left/middle/right seems to be an extremely narrow band now, with the loons and freaks of the far left and far right outpacing the moderates in speech, action, and sadly, political clout. And make no mistake, it's not JUST the far left trying to shut down free speech, though they definitely are. The far right stokes that flame at every opportunity. The extremism is making discourse nearly impossible because any reasonable statement meant to instigate nothing more than thought provoking conversation almost instantly gets drowned out with screaming morons and shitslingers trying desperately to stop the possibility of somebody saying something they disagree with and not being destroyed for it.

I fear the First Amendment may be reduced to a memory in the coming years, as far too many voting age people are all about shutting down "those others" without ever taking a moment to think the same rules are going to apply to them when the pendulum swings back the other way. And those swings are getting more extreme with every pass. Sooner or later the arm won't hold and whichever direction the weight is headed is going to take us all along with it. Neither direction sounds great to me, but I certainly don't see the undulations decreasing over the past few decades. It's almost like society is eating itself. The regression is palpable.

Meanwhile, in Australia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tonight (March 19) all large telco carriers have started censoring a list of sites they deem to be "unsafe" in the current context, that being the aftermath of the Christchurch Massacre.

4chan, 8chan, kiwifarms, liveleak, voat, bitchute and even freakin' zerohedge! I'm sure there's more.

Conflicting news is coming out about it being mandated by the Australian government vs a unilateral decision by a cartel of "woke" carriers.

This is not the dystopian nightmare future that I signed up for. Please send help.

Re:Meanwhile, in Australia...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Gab and Dissenter are now banned down under, too.

Re:Meanwhile, in Australia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Liveleak is censoring it though. The first time I watched it was on Liveleak, but when I went back the next day to try to figure out why there aren't any bullet holes in the walls even when he clearly shoots the wall, it was completely scrubbed from the site, and any searches for "new zealand" returned an error. So, it seems kind of unfair to ban them for not censoring fast enough, when youtube also had the video early on, but later went all out to make sure no one could examine it.

Re:Meanwhile, in Australia...

[Anonymous Coward]

And nothing of value was lost....

Re:Meanwhile, in Australia...

[Anonymous Coward]

> try to figure out why there aren't any bullet holes in the walls even when he clearly shoots the wall

it were space aliens

We have that!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are conservative you get shadow banned

West control of net

[AHuxley]

is good.
Content removed. Reported. Shadow ban. Deranking. No review of movies?
Russia has laws is bad.

Re:West control of net

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ignore all the criticism that the EU copyright laws get, the criticism Macrons anti-fake-news law gets, the criticism banning hate speech gets, and so forth.
You can find all of that on Slashdot. And I know that you know this, because when I look into your post history I can see you being prominently featured in those articles.

You're a shit nugget.

Prevents FAKE NEWS and ONLINE HATE!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what the Democrats need to pass here in America to keep us safe from the threat of FAKE NEWS and ONLINE HATE! After the tragedy in Christchurch I think we should all be calling on our congressman to pass similar legislation here at home.

James Rosen

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama basically had a FISA warrant on James Rosen and spied on his parents even, illegally.
Obama banned Fox News from White House, WH press core went on strike to reverse it.

Meanwhile...
Trump banned Jim Acosta from WH because he "attacked an intern" and was very disrespectful. Other CNN reporters were allowed in, Jim was let back in a few days later.

Hmm, there appears to be a difference here. I have facts, you have an eyeroll.

Re: Leftist Propaganda Needs Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

The left and the right change their minds, their symbols and their ideologies all the time. This is just one of those weird things about history. 10 years ago, the left supported border walls and free speech. 20 years ago, the right was full of nothing but loudmouth Bible thumpers. 80 years ago, fascism was favored by what would be judged today as what we define as the political left.

I suppose the only thing we can draw from this is that the world, its people and its history are not a static mathematical constant. We change. We evolve, and even devolve, with the ebb and flow of time.

Freedoms of 90x are coming to the end

[Anonymous Coward]

I published my father's math science book in 1995 right after first ISP arrived to Russia, before that he could not get any review and approval for publication. The transcript is about extension of flat complex algebra of Cauchy into space. There is nothing anti-human in his work, just pure research work and multiple applications in theoretical physics, including calculations of high temperature superconductivity, iron-carbon diagram calculations and some more exotic research like length or period in periodic table calculation and examples of nuclear fusion and decay reactions calculations, some other staff. Every item I mention is good enough for research publication, but he was not allowed to publish his transcript anywhere, he's been constantly harassed or ignored by science officials of Soviet Union, so we enjoined internet freedom of 90x and published his works. The result is still the same, no traction, no reviews, just some feedback from crazy guys. The work is not aligned to main stream research so nobody cares about it. But my point is that we still published our work, it is definitely not for everyone, but for limited number of people who are into this kind of theoretical research, we don't expect instant success anymore, but our goal is not to loose the work we did. But all these trends I observe in USA and in Russia are all about control over what and how is being published over internet. That means that at some point our work would be just silently kicked out of domains list registered in Russian internet.
I am not against Putin and I don't support him very much, but all that endless internet feuds effect my work, which has nothing to do with politics.

Official Russian Twitter accounts

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody know what the Putin equivalent of @realdonaldtrump is? I feel the need to run some insulting shit through google translate and tweet it. Come at me, bro!

I have no problem with this

[CaptainDork]

Colorado has pot; Texas doesn't.

Let each sovereign nation do what they will.

America has a fucking batshit crazy leader but that's America's business.

How soon?

[Anonymous Coward]

How soon until Trump tweets his desire for such a law here?

The return of that shitty xkcd

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey there, I noticed that you posted that shitty xkcd, here is a not-shit version of it.

You're welcome.

He's Fine. Trump told me.

[CohibaVancouver]

---

Tump: "You know what? Putin's fine. He's fine. We're all fine. We're people."

---

Bill O'Reilly: "But [Putin] is a killer."
Trump: "There are a lot of killers. Do you think our country is so innocent?"

---

Trump: "[Putin] is a strong leader, unlike what we have [Obama]."

---

Oh, the humanity, ah, the irony...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great capitalist saints like Reagan, Thatcher, Ede Teller and Karol Wojtyla spent their lives eradicating the muscovite menace and succeeded in dismantling the Empire of Evil. Yet it now is rearing its ugly head again, led by the KGB spy putin. Why and how could people allow that to happen? Will G-d send a new generation of capitalist crusader saints soon, to finally crush the ruffians underfoot?

(In many eastern european churches the defeated Satan being trumpled upon by Archangel Micheal is painted with the facial effigy of joe stalin, clearly showing people knew soviet is the worst possible offense against heavenly order.)

Why "Once Trump is gone"

[SuperKendall]

there's a storm coming, as soon as Trump is gone and Brexit isn't distracting every moment of British political discourse anymore, the genie he let out of the bottle of political interference is going to cause serious blowback in Russia

Just how would blowback in Russia happen even before these measures. Guess what, real totalitarian states don't allow "blowback".

Why would Trump being gone have anything to do with this, if the U.S. manages to get rid of trump, it means the naturally communist side of the Democratic Party will have taken over and people won't be worrying about what Russia does, but loss of freedoms in America... you don't think many Democrats are not chomping at the bit for similar laws to be passed in the U.S.?

Re:Why "Once Trump is gone"

[lgw]

people won't be worrying about what Russia does, but loss of freedoms in America... you don't think many Democrats are not chomping at the bit for similar laws to be passed in the U.S.?

It amazes me how often some folks on the left speak out for similar censorship (e.g., banning anti-vax stuff, not even political) while Trump is president. Seriously? You want to give the president the power to ban "fake news"?

People have this naive idea that we can insist on "facts", blind to the political realities of giving some authority the ability to decide what is a "fact".

Re:Why "Once Trump is gone"

[Anonymous Coward]

Civil discourse is necessary for a functioning democracy. Our system is doomed if we're unable, as a society, to sift through propaganda and fake news. Discourse and compromise between factions are the foundation of civilization itself. Partisanism, demagoguery, and nationalism proceed the fall of great nations.

The (neoliberal) Left assumes you can legislate away problems in society. The center-Right neoconservatives assume economic power should also equal political power and that there is nothing inherently bad with a class based society. Maxist Left believe that labor needs to organiz and dismantle thr class system, yet offers no other solutions beyond that narrow goal. Paleo Left are liberal in the 18th century sense, that government is a place for society's best and brightest to improve the lives of all around them(the common good). This doesn't necessarily mean big taxes, unless your nation lacks equality and there is a huge gap between rich and poor with little to no educated middle class.

Re:Why "Once Trump is gone"

[lgw]

Civil discourse is necessary for a functioning democracy. Our system is doomed if we're unable, as a society, to sift through propaganda and fake news. Discourse and compromise between factions are the foundation of civilization itself. Partisanism, demagoguery, and nationalism proceed the fall of great nations.

This is very true. But that "we" is important. Each of us as individuals needs to be able to sift through propaganda and fake news. And most people are in fact pretty god t that when it comes to things that affect them directly. People will believe anything they're reading just for entertainment, and that's OK really.

We built a resilient society by insisting that critical thinking is everyone's duty. You can't outsource that; well, not and protect yourself from tyranny. Very effective: you read some misinformation, and most of your friends point out why it's wrong and give you shit for believing it. Very ineffective: this is the dark secret the government has hidden from you; don't believe it, they're just protecting you by hiding this mysterious dangerous informant that you should not read.

Re:Why "Once Trump is gone"

[Anonymous Coward]

Being pro-vax is neither left nor right, it is scientific. I just saw a story about some anti-vax "club" on facebook that goes around trolling people who have children that DIED from stuff that could have been prevented by herd immunity. DIED. And then the anti-vaxers moan when the PUBLIC schools ban them from class because they may cause an epidemic in the schools. Vaccination is like clean drinking water. It has nothing to do with left/right. I suppose you'd like to see polio come back along with the iron lungs to support those who succumb to it.

Re:Why "Once Trump is gone"

[Anonymous Coward]

similarly, Obama blasted George Bush for ramping up the Surveillance State, then Obama turned out and amplified the spying done by NSA, CIA and FBI, and then had the gall to bend the already bent rules to use the vast US SIGINT system to spy on Candidate Trump, without even pausing to consider "you didn't built that, i built that, but what if the next guy after Trump uses my illegal spying to rig the election as precedent to spy and rig it for themselves, and what if that next guy is a Republican a million times worse than Trump and what if my actions enable the Republicans to cinch onto power for the next 50 years?"

Re:Why "Once Trump is gone"

[Anonymous Coward]

> Just how would blowback in Russia happen even before these measures. Guess what, real totalitarian states don't allow "blowback".

lol yeah okay, because that theory worked so well for Gaddafi and Assad?

What the fuck are you smoking lol

> it means the naturally communist side of the Democratic Party

That isn't even a thing. Stop being a fucking retard. You have a guy running your country who lost the popular vote by 3 million ballots, who lost the House of Representatives and is now using emergency laws to get his way, that's textbook authoritarianism, and you're worried about what some non-existent communist wing of the Democratic party that may or may not exist and getting in power at some arbitrary point in future might do?

I'm astounded that you're supporting the death of democracy in your own country by talking about some fantasy. You should probably go see a psychiatrist before you end up shooting up a mosque for trying to eliminate the white race or some other such absurdity.

Re:Why "Once Trump is gone"

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama's biggest failings never get talked about. Extra-judicial murder of American citizens? Nah, we don't talk about that. How about how he sat on his ass and didn't renew a law forbidding propaganda, government sponsored lying to citizens? Nope, let's not talk about that either. Okay, what about expanding the ever loving shit out of the surveillance state? Allowing the various 3 letter organizations to continue funding crackpots to turn them into "terrorists" so they could apprehend them right before their big government funded rampage?

Can't talk about that shit, THAT'D BE RACIST!

Re:Russia hasn't done shit, dipshit

[DamnOregonian]

The level of willful ignorance required to truly believe that is nearly impossible to believe. I think you're just gaslighting.

Hacking just got scarier...

[gosand]

I would expect that now all you would have to do is hack someone's site/account, change some text, and report it to the proper authorities.
Getting caught for this type of hacking wouldn't be much fun either.

Copycat!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so he's copying what's happening in the US. Except in the US, it's illegal to insult anyone, not just the government.

Trump will follow suit ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guarantee Trump will try to do this.

He's already talking about SNL being treasonous or whatever for parodying him, he's already said Libel laws are too lax (apparently he wants telling the truth to be considered libel now), and wants to prosecute news agencies for reporting what he deems fake news (again, actual verified facts refuting his lies).

Let's not pretend that the current POTUS neither knows nor cares about the law or the Constitution, and only wants to be sure he can't be criticized

That Trump the Idiot thinks it should be wrong from Saturday Night Live to parody him (despite decades of doing this to every president) tells you all you need to know about his moral character, understanding of the law, and if he's really any different than every other wannabe piss-pot dictator.

Trump, turning America into a shit hole of a country, one tweet at a time.

Any Republican who isn't vocally opposing Trump in his calls to have SNL investigated for ... whatever imagined crime his tiny little mind has imagined ... then you're a fucking hypocrite, and it's time to accept that the Republicans can no longer claim to make policy based on principles.

Donald Trump is a lying sack of shit, and a nascent fascist. If you can't see that, you're either a moron, or want to get in on the fascism on the ground floor.

"Once Trump hangs from his traitor's neck"

[Anonymous Coward]

When IGW and other Republicans lie, their tiny non-functional penises become that much more shriveled and hooklike, useless. QED, see above.

Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump.

Banhammer, da?

[Anonymous Coward]

I say block all Russian assholes from the internet. That should cut spam and viruses by half, at least. Go suck borscht, comrade.

Re:Russia hasn't done shit, dipshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democratic Primary isn't an election of the United States of America. You may not like how or who the party chose to run, but tough shit. Nothing illegal, nothing "stolen".

in general your totally incorrect to the point where you know youre wrong and are just lying, or youre delusional.

Tell Mike Flynn and the rest of trumps traitor team that are in or waiting to go to prison that this isn't anything.

Just like American censorship bills?

[Anonymous Coward]

America and its high horse roflmao.

Just like if you insult a police officer you get THE SHIT BEAT OUT OF YOU IN AMERICA? Good luck fighting the police dept and public prosecutor roflmao. If you are making below $50,000 a year you have no chance of finding an attorney to take your case, so cops can beat the shit out of whoever they like in the Great America!

Insult a politician and they will get even in America.

America is perfect compared to Russia. They are so much less Evil. I love them sooooo much. Their death, wars, brutality, psychopathic lying, and subversion of all cultures. I love America!

Re: Leftist Propaganda Needs Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

at the present rates of illegal immigration, with 30 million illegals already here, and 2 million new illegals arriving every year, on top of 1 million per year in legal immigration, plus the 62 million Crooked Hillary voters who are closeted Bolsheviks who hate America anyways--add it all up and half of Americans hate America far too much for some silly satirical hyper-Nationalist vignette like you described to ever become reality. you think half of California will ever shout Uncle Sam's slogans on every day which is July 4th? more like half of California will burn the US flag every day until Uncle Sam disavows America and uses the proper Pronouns and invites all of the 3rd world to come into American and turns all of America into one big ass mystery meat Bolshevik nest favela from sea to shining sea.

I hooe russia disintegrates like venezuela

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that cess pool of a country

Trump thinks SNL is "Hate Speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Authoritarianism is alive and well on the far left and far right. One side bitches about "hate speech" while the other calls the media "the enemy of the people".

I see the paid Russian trolls...

[Anonymous Coward]

...are trying to change the subject and criticize the West at every opportunity in their posts here. Silly trolls.

Nothing Will Change

[Anonymous Coward]

All of Russia's hacks on U.S.elections are already state sanctioned anyway, so nothing will change.

Liberal = bigot

[Anonymous Coward]

Lookie another liberal bigot.
Berkley prevents Ann Coulter or Milo Y from talking, another university prevents Condolezza Rice from giving a speech. "Not. Being. Oppressed." is his line.

That's right. When a woman, gay or black is prevented from giving a speech no one is being oppressed. What he REALLY means is no one "important" is being oppressed.
Liberalism, where if you aren't an old white guy, they don't give a fuck what you have to say. "Feel the Bern" of racism and bigotry.

Re:Liberal = bigot

[L. J. Beauregard]

You're being oppressed because your Nazi hero is being denied a forum? Even as those same Nazischweine are piped into nearly every home in America and you Hundred Percent Red Blood Americans pay for the privilege of hearing their unhinged rants? I seem to remember having cable TV when I was in college. Are those same colleges blocking students from watching Fox Propaganda?
Try being shot by police because you're the wrong color. Try being denied a job, an apartment or a medical procedure because of someone's Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs.
You. Are. Not. Being. Oppressed.

We should be surprised, why?

[McFortner]

And slowly, bit by bit, the overpowering state authority that was seen in the Soviet Union is being brought back to life in today's Russia. Considering Putin's ties to the old regime, it's not hard to see him trying to return to that system to keep himself in power.

Re:We should be surprised, why?

[Anonymous Coward]

And slowly, bit by bit, the overpowering state authority that was seen in the Soviet Union is being brought back to life in today's Russia. Considering Putin's ties to the old regime, it's not hard to see him trying to return to that system to keep himself in power.

It's getting almost as bad as the EU!

Re: Leftist Propaganda Needs Censorship

[L. J. Beauregard]

30 million illegals already here

Citation needed.

The far right should be stamped out everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter if they call themselves ISIS or "good Christians" or "REAL Americans", they don't deserve to be part of any free society with their constant turning to violence and civilian mass murder

Ideas are more poweful than Guns

[aberglas]

We would not let our enemies have guns. So why would we let them have ideas?

Stalin.

Meanwhile in Silicon Vally....

[renegadesx]

...they only wish they could pass such laws. The reason the "muh Russia" is even a story is because they wish they could enforce such tyranny on American citizens!

Re: Leftist Propaganda Needs Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

>He doesn't know there are 30 million illegals

That's what happens when you live in a liberal ideological bubble...

ONLY 1.5M rubles?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Insults against Putin himself can be punished under the law, The Moscow Times reports. Punishments can be as high as 300,000 rubles ($4,700) and 15 days in jail.

Why not just go straight to execution? That's where this is all heading, isn't it? How many Russians who would have any motivation to criticize Putin actually HAVE 300,000 rubles ($4,700) they can even lay their hands on to pay such a fine?

Corollary question: What happens to them when they... can't... PAY?

I don't know when Russia's trying out democracy ended, exactly... but it's surely over now. Take a good look at what happens when you let someone be "president" for life, because that's pretty much exactly what's in-store for the United States if it doesn't get rid of that fucking fraud pretending to be "president".

"president"

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like other so called presidents... Trump is sure to think this move will be a great way to go.

Actually it won't

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it won't make it illegal to claim the world is flat... It will make it illegal to disagree with whatever form for the earth that the supreme leader says it has. If Putin says it is flat, then it is flat and saying otherwise is hereby a crime...

Vladdy Poots

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, vladdy poots got this situation sewed up like your mouth

Re:Russia hasn't done shit, dipshit

[Uberbah]

The Democratic Primary isn't an election of the United States of America. You may not like how or who the party chose to run, but tough shit. Nothing illegal, nothing "stolen".

Fraud is illegal. DNC charter mandates neutrality in races, and solicited donations from voters under such rules. Money laundering is also illegal, and the Clinton campaign also engaged in a massive scheme to skirt contribution limits by having donors give the max to different state party organizations, money that was sent straight back to the Clinton campaign for use in the primary and general elections.

Tell Mike Flynn

The Mike Flynn that talked to the Russians to 1) get their support on a UN vote on Apartheid Israel 2) to not retaliate for new American sanctions levied on Russia in response to America overthrowing Ukraine's government.

However don't let these trolls fool you into becoming an apologist for the Kremlin and getting the feeling that the Kremlin is actually a better friend to you than the political opposition in your own country. Just because there was no collusion it does not mean that the Kremlin didn't do anything in their power to muddy up things. It just means that we shouldn't blame Trump or the GOP for what happened.

Since the end of the cold war, Russia has been an infinitely better friend to humanity than either the Republican or Democratic parties. This isn't debatable, it's simple empirical fact. As to the "Russia must have done something because reasons" trope, all the Russiagate BS sounds like that scene from Austin Powers where Dr. Evil suggest blackmailing the world for one miiiiiiilion dollars. According to this theory, in 2015 Putin decided to influence the American election by.....spending less than $5,000 on Google ads, and employing a Twitter troll farm that posted both pro and anti-Trump memes, Obama merchandise, and puppies.

Re:Russia hasn't done shit, dipshit

[Uberbah]

Lulz. Mueller has wrapped his investigation with zero indictments over the election. Russiagate was the dumbest conspiracy theory from the beginning, when Mueller refused to examine the DNC servers, the supposed hacking of which is the entire basis of Russiagate.

A decade after learning that the invasion of Iraq was based on total bullshit and lies from both public and deep state officials, a large portion of the public just decided to eat that kind of propaganda up a second time, with a spoon.

Re:Russia hasn't done shit, dipshit

[DamnOregonian]

Mueller failed to find evidence of direct collusion, (supposedly), but also (supposedly) found tons of evidence of Russians interacting with the Trump campaign and trying to influence the direction.

So really, that means the entire thing was justified, no?
You know what it's called when a foreign government attempts to change the government of your government? Regime change.
To claim that the Russians weren't trying to change the outcome of that election is pure willful ignorance. Nothing credible has come close to casting any doubt on that conclusion.
I'm curious why you're so invested in seeing them exonerated?

Re:Russia hasn't done shit, dipshit

[Uberbah]

but also (supposedly) found tons of evidence of Russians interacting with the Trump campaign and trying to influence the direction.

If by "tons", your device autocorrected from "none", then yes. The so-called evidence that has been "presented" is so bad it's dispositive. Like less than $5000 in Google ads definitively changing the the result of a $9 billion election. Or pointing to a Twitter troll farm that posted pro-Trump tweets - along with anti-Trump tweets, puppy tweets, tweets selling Obama fan merchandise, or even tweets posted after the election. A Trump tower meeting where even die hard Russiagaters admit Trump Junior walked away from empty-handed.

So really, that means the entire thing was justified, no?

It means the whole thing was a McCarthyite witch hunt. That's what it means. And stupid for two reasons:

1) All this time and political capital could have been focused on Trump violating the Emoluments Clause, which he has brazenly violated.

2) This has greatly helped Trump's re-election chances for 2020. Because people don't like it when other people are attacked for bullshit reasons, and because of the Boy who Cried Wolf. Future accusations against Trump, even if totally legit, will gain less traction because Russiagate was nothing more than a lie to excuse Hillary Clinton being an atrocious candidate.

To claim that the Russians weren't trying to change the outcome of that election is pure willful ignorance. Nothing credible has come close to casting any doubt on that conclusion.

Your projection is noted. Russia is the same country it was in 2012, when the establishment mocked Mitt Romney for saying Russia was a threat to the United States. The same 2012 where Putin stated a preference for the candidate not looking to escalate tensions with his country, but before a large number of Americans allowed them to be propagandized by the same people that lied you into Iraq.

I'm curious why you're so invested in seeing them exonerated?

It's called having a bullshit detector. Check your local Home Depot to see if they have one for sale?

Re:Russia hasn't done shit, dipshit

[DamnOregonian]

If by "tons", your device autocorrected from "none", then yes. The so-called evidence that has been "presented" is so bad it's dispositive. Like less than $5000 in Google ads definitively changing the the result of a $9 billion election. Or pointing to a Twitter troll farm that posted pro-Trump tweets - along with anti-Trump tweets, puppy tweets, tweets selling Obama fan merchandise, or even tweets posted after the election. A Trump tower meeting where even die hard Russiagaters admit Trump Junior walked away from empty-handed.

Ok, your numbers are hilariously misleading, but that's not the point. I said, tons of evidence of Russia attempting to alter the election, and attempting to coordinate with Trump's team.
Thank you for confirming that, even if your conclusion was dead wrong.

It means the whole thing was a McCarthyite witch hunt. That's what it means. And stupid for two reasons:

Conflating this with McCarthyism is disgusting, and you know it.
How many people went down for lying about talking to the Russians?

1) All this time and political capital could have been focused on Trump violating the Emoluments Clause, which he has brazenly violated.

Huh? The Special Investigation was launched a long time ago due to an undeniable act of obstruction of justice.
Breach of the emoluments clause is going to require the third branch of government to do something about.

2) This has greatly helped Trump's re-election chances for 2020. Because people don't like it when other people are attacked for bullshit reasons, and because of the Boy who Cried Wolf. Future accusations against Trump, even if totally legit, will gain less traction because Russiagate was nothing more than a lie to excuse Hillary Clinton being an atrocious candidate.

You're probably not wrong.

Your projection is noted. Russia is the same country it was in 2012, when the establishment mocked Mitt Romney [youtu.be] for saying Russia was a threat to the United States. The same 2012 where Putin stated a preference for the candidate not looking to escalate tensions with his country, but before a large number of Americans allowed them to be propagandized by the same people [youtu.be] that lied you into Iraq.

You're well aware that Mitt was talking about militarily. He was right to be laughed at.

It's called having a bullshit detector. Check your local Home Depot to see if they have one for sale?

No, I think you're just a fucking incapable of letting logic seep into that echo chamber between your ears.

Re:Russia hasn't done shit, dipshit

[Uberbah]

I said, tons of evidence of Russia attempting to alter the election, and attempting to coordinate with Trump's team

Zero evidence. Both parties are virulently anti-russian and have been for over a century. Even the self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders has been onboard Russiagate from the beginning. It's as stupid as stupid as accusing a gay person of interferring in an election between a homophobic Catholic and a homophobic Baptist. Your preferred choice when dealing with two candidates that hate your guts is going to be "none of the above".

Like Birthers, Lunars, Chem Trailers and other whakjob conspiracy theorists, all you have is a Gish Gallop. That's where you fire off a rapid series of talking points while pretending that volume == substance. But spent a moment scrutinizing any of the talking points and they invariably turn out to be bullshit. Twitter troll farm? Bullshit. Russian NRA spy? Bullshit. Russia hacked the DNC emails? Bullshit.

Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
And more Bullshit. Rinse, wash and repeat.

Conflating this with McCarthyism is disgusting, and you know it.

Lulz. Russians, Russians, everywhere! Russians in your utility grids, Russians in your voting machines, Russians in Black Lives Matter! Russians controlling the White House with a manchurian candidate! So many Russians we have to accept mass government-directed corporate censorship of the internet! But yeah, this is nothing like McCarthyism. Oregon has lots of rivers, but have you tried kayaking down De Nile?

Huh? The Special Investigation was launched a long time ago due to an undeniable act of obstruction of justice.

Huh? You can only have obstruction of justice after the fact. Not before. It's like if your local police department got a warrant out on you for resisting arrest - when there's no warrant out and no one has tried to arrest you. Ever.

Breach of the emoluments clause is going to require the third branch of government to do something about.

Uh, no. Removing a president from office is purely up to the legislative branch. It's telling, though, that you poo-pooh an actual violation of the Constitution from Trump, instead of your stupid McCarthyite conspiracy theories.

You're well aware that Mitt was talking about militarily.

You're well aware that's laughable. Democrats have been calling the hack of the DNC emails (actually leaks) a 'digital Pearl Harbor' from Russia for years now. All these supposed attacks on American democracy and that of its allies, but none if it is military? However you want to rationalize the fact you're in the same boat as Mitt Romney. And a bunch of Lunars, Chem Trailers and Birthers.