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

[Tomahawk]

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

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]

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]

^shameless self promotion^ sad but true.

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[DamnOregonian]

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

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]

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

[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

[Highdude702]

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

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Highdude702]

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

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...

[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".

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

[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

[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

[Freischutz]

Who is Fox News or Sinclair trying to censor again?

WTF are you talking about?

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

[SocietyoftheFist]

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

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.

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

[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.

New Zealand

[Kunedog]

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

Re:New Zealand

[Highdude702]

Of course not, that's good censorship.

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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[mapkinase]

bullshit

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: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.

there

[Anonymous Coward]

Putin sucks cocks.

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!

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.

A coward

[Pyramid]

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

Surprised, anyone?

[OneHundredAndTen]

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

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?

People in the west used to ridicule for this

[Roodvlees]

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

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: 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.

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: 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.

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.

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]."

---

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: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.

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.

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.

Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same

[SocietyoftheFist]

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

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.

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.

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: Leftist Propaganda Needs Censorship

[L. J. Beauregard]

30 million illegals already here

Citation needed.

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.

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: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.