He's basically saying that everyone is free to use whatever means they have to silence people, unless you work for the government... in which case you would at least be, ostensibly, accountable to voters.
The Sun is owned by PostMedia which also owns the National Post, who held a struggle session against Canada's greatest columnist Rex Murphy because he dared say Canada isn't systemically racist.
PostMedia also worked to block Rebel News from being accredited by the Alberta Press Gallery.
But we ARE systematically racist - it's just that the non-European immigrants are the first-class citizens, the Tribes have dropped to second-class, and the white, single-citizenship Canadian is firmly on the bottom of the pile, down with the wildlife.
Typical fucking shlomo making salad words to fit his narrative. This is why I hate the tribes, their manipulative way to fuck with the language to screw the goyim.
IOW, the "press" should be able to do and say whatever it wants, including 1) kingmaking and 2) destroying the lives of wrong-thinkers and 3) arbiting morality. But no one should be allowed to question them or call them out on it, or say anything the "press" doesn't sanction.
This is, unfortunately, a common sentiment. Very few will truly be pro-free speech because along with it comes ideas that are undoubtedly offensive to everyone, but there's implicit acknowledgement that denying a fundamental right - absent of danger to personal safety (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater) - is wrong.
Hate speech laws muddy the waters too. Crime should be crime, but zealousness in being "on the right side" adds a slippery slope, which of course predictably gets abused despite being mocked as a strawman; the opposite side, of course, is free to hold double standards and accuse free speech advocates of supporting child pornography or the like.
I expect this from media, but I find it very irritating to see "free speech" platforms make all types of caveats.
The thing about "hate speech" is this: While you can ask people to be civil to one another and refrain from harming people you don't like just because you don't like them, trying to force people to pretend they actually do like one another never works out. But the kum-by-yah-fags really think they can make their weird combination of Doctor Who's "The Happiness Patrol" and Black Mirror's "Nosedive" a utopia this time.
This phrase was made famous by a supreme court decision about free speech. It was an analogy then, too. The ACTUAL speech that was being restricted was pamphlets protesting the draft in WW1, not yelling in a theatre, and that decision was rightly overturned a long time ago. People always quote it when talking about freedom of speech, but the fact that it's most famous use was to justify outlawing speech that should have been legal really makes it's use fall flat.
It reminds me of the time Gab was first was making the news for being a hub for radical speech. Many of the never Trump/useless conservative types, wouldn't defend them under the grounds of freedom of expression, even though they all claimed to support free speech. These morons couldn't seem to grasp the fact that you need to defend all speech to actually claim the mantle of a being a free speech supporter.
Libertarians, "I believe the government has the right to enforce millions of regulations on companies to protect workers, the environment, and society at large. But the second you suggest a regulation that would protect an individual's right to speak an opinion that isn't approved of by oligarchs, I will instantly jump into action and fight to the death against it."
IIRC, this is a National Review writer and the author of 'Liberal Fascism' - a book with an inflammatory title but reportedly less absurd contents.
He's basically saying that everyone is free to use whatever means they have to silence people, unless you work for the government... in which case you would at least be, ostensibly, accountable to voters.
How's that big tech dick taste, faggot?
The Sun is owned by PostMedia which also owns the National Post, who held a struggle session against Canada's greatest columnist Rex Murphy because he dared say Canada isn't systemically racist.
PostMedia also worked to block Rebel News from being accredited by the Alberta Press Gallery.
But we ARE systematically racist - it's just that the non-European immigrants are the first-class citizens, the Tribes have dropped to second-class, and the white, single-citizenship Canadian is firmly on the bottom of the pile, down with the wildlife.
Typical fucking shlomo making salad words to fit his narrative. This is why I hate the tribes, their manipulative way to fuck with the language to screw the goyim.
A presstitute named Goldberg, eh? Probably not gonna need an early life section for that one.
IOW, the "press" should be able to do and say whatever it wants, including 1) kingmaking and 2) destroying the lives of wrong-thinkers and 3) arbiting morality. But no one should be allowed to question them or call them out on it, or say anything the "press" doesn't sanction.
This is, unfortunately, a common sentiment. Very few will truly be pro-free speech because along with it comes ideas that are undoubtedly offensive to everyone, but there's implicit acknowledgement that denying a fundamental right - absent of danger to personal safety (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater) - is wrong.
Hate speech laws muddy the waters too. Crime should be crime, but zealousness in being "on the right side" adds a slippery slope, which of course predictably gets abused despite being mocked as a strawman; the opposite side, of course, is free to hold double standards and accuse free speech advocates of supporting child pornography or the like.
I expect this from media, but I find it very irritating to see "free speech" platforms make all types of caveats.
The thing about "hate speech" is this: While you can ask people to be civil to one another and refrain from harming people you don't like just because you don't like them, trying to force people to pretend they actually do like one another never works out. But the kum-by-yah-fags really think they can make their weird combination of Doctor Who's "The Happiness Patrol" and Black Mirror's "Nosedive" a utopia this time.
This phrase was made famous by a supreme court decision about free speech. It was an analogy then, too. The ACTUAL speech that was being restricted was pamphlets protesting the draft in WW1, not yelling in a theatre, and that decision was rightly overturned a long time ago. People always quote it when talking about freedom of speech, but the fact that it's most famous use was to justify outlawing speech that should have been legal really makes it's use fall flat.
Looks like my public education has greatly failed me. This is excellent to know for the next time.
It reminds me of the time Gab was first was making the news for being a hub for radical speech. Many of the never Trump/useless conservative types, wouldn't defend them under the grounds of freedom of expression, even though they all claimed to support free speech. These morons couldn't seem to grasp the fact that you need to defend all speech to actually claim the mantle of a being a free speech supporter.
Translation:
"We the anointed in the press get to do and say whatever we want. And you filthy peasants have to worship the ground we walk on and never talk back."
Who the fuck cares about Goldberg‽ He is as exciting as Bill Kristol.
I haven't seen an interrobang in a long while.
Imagine still thinking there's a difference between the government and the heavily subsidized public corporate apparatus.
Every time.
>canadian
your opinion does not matter
Libertarians, "I believe the government has the right to enforce millions of regulations on companies to protect workers, the environment, and society at large. But the second you suggest a regulation that would protect an individual's right to speak an opinion that isn't approved of by oligarchs, I will instantly jump into action and fight to the death against it."
oops i just realized the link ended up sending people to the bottom of the page. https://archive.is/20dI0 would be a better link.
Is use of 'they' as a possessive not a mark of Ebonics?
no first amendment doesn't limit just the government from censorship.