In Europe, Free Speech Bows to Sharia

[firstfloor]

It was a yes or no question. I was asking what you think, so it kind of matters.

Not surprising you would try to compare Trump to Hitler. So it's pretty obvious you do find what Hitler did wrong given your dislike of Trump.

Hitler was not a villain in 1930. He was greatly admired at home and abroad, although not by everyone. The point is that you cannot easily retrofit our current sensibilities into history.

[Cerebrum123]

Hitler was not a villain in 1930. He was greatly admired at home and abroad, although not by everyone. The point is that you cannot easily retrofit our current sensibilities into history.

So now the World War 2 era German Nazis were right to murder Jews in gas chambers?

ETA: So now you are in favor of Trump?

[KingsGambit]

Calling Mo a pedo shows a lack of sensitivity.

The issue isn't sensitivity, it's whether making the claim should be illegal. Nobody has disputed that saying that is controversial.

[KingsGambit]

So now the World War 2 era German Nazis were right to murder Jews in gas chambers?

ETA: So now you are in favor of Trump?

I'm not sure what point he's trying to make but it wouldn't involve the Holocaust because he's saying 1930, and Hitler wasn't even in power at that point.

[Cerebrum123]

I'm not sure what point he's trying to make but it wouldn't involve the Holocaust because he's saying 1930, and Hitler wasn't even in power at that point.

I'm trying to get back on track to the original question since he's trying to dodge it.

[firstfloor]

I'm trying to get back on track to the original question since he's trying to dodge it.

[Cerebrum123]

Um, I was basically asking for clarification. That you aren't being clear isn't my fault. You are being intentionally cryptic in order to avoid giving a clear answer.

[Cow Poke]

Um, I was basically asking for clarification. That you aren't being clear isn't my fault. You are being intentionally cryptic in order to avoid giving a clear answer.

I think he was just ing, and didn't have a point at all, but can't admit that.

[firstfloor]

Um, I was basically asking for clarification. That you aren't being clear isn't my fault. You are being intentionally cryptic in order to avoid giving a clear answer.

What does Nazi Germany have to do with this topic? Nothing! As I said already, my answer to your question has no bearing on the subject of this thread. I am preventing you from being distracted.

[Mountain Man]

The point is that you cannot easily retrofit our current sensibilities into history.

Which brings us back to...

"For that matter, why should we judge anybody by a standard they don't personally hold to? The ultimate implication of your argument is that nothing is truly immoral, and everything is permissible."

[lilpixieofterror]

Your evidence for this assertion is what? Quite a number of those on the left seem to have similar anti free speech attitudes.

[firstfloor]

Which brings us back to...

"For that matter, why should we judge anybody by a standard they don't personally hold to? The ultimate implication of your argument is that nothing is truly immoral, and everything is permissible."

I doubt that, a lot. The known history of human civilization would strongly indicate the opposite. We got here by increments and so we see a family resemblance to moral systems across history.

[Mountain Man]

I doubt that, a lot. The known history of human civilization would strongly indicate the opposite. We got here by increments and so we see a family resemblance to moral systems across history.

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head. You imply that morality is not universal across time or culture, which is as good as saying that morality doesn't exist at all, yet you seem unwilling to embrace this logical necessity of your position. Why is that? Is it perhaps because you instinctively recognize that your position is wrong?

[Mountain Man]

Your evidence for this assertion is what? Quite a number of those on the left seem to have similar anti free speech attitudes.

It's funny because Trump has merely called out the media for false reporting. Obama, on the other hand, actually spied on, intimidated, and jailed reporters who displeased him. Yet we're supposed to be afraid of Trump. Yeah, OK.

[rogue06]

It's funny because Trump has merely called out the media for false reporting. Obama, on the other hand, actually spied on, intimidated, and jailed reporters who displeased him. Yet we're supposed to be afraid of Trump. Yeah, OK.

00000000000000ar1aa1aza.jpg

Liberals for the most part ignored how poorly Obama treated the press and the press itself largely smiled and masochistically took what he handed out because he was the Obamessiah and most of it was directed toward conservatives.

Source: WHY IT'LL BE HARD FOR TRUMP TO SURPASS OBAMA'S RECORD OF CHILLING PRESS FREEDOM

Many in the mainstream media are reacting with righteous indignation over comments from a senior Trump adviser suggesting the administration views the traditional media as an opponent. But if we're to take these apostles of press freedom seriously, they should first explain why the Trump Administration is worse than the Obama Administration.

After all, the Obama Administration literally tried imprisoning an uncooperative journalist, monitored journalists' every digital move, and "hammered" at least one challenging reporter with IRS audits.

Let's rewind the tape.

The Obama Administration began with lofty promises of being "the most transparent administration in history." Instead it ended up setting a record, by the Associated Press's count, for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests.

As the administration's popularity began tumbling early into its first year, the Obama White House declared war on Fox News. The White House director of communications, Anita Dunn, warned they would henceforth treat Fox News "like an opponentthe administration sought to deny Fox News' participation in executive branch news-making events -- which only failed after other networks admirably refused to participate if Fox News were excluded.

As you'll see in the montage above, President Obama blamed Fox News and talk radio for virtually every problem his administration encountered, warning in his waning days that these "domestic propagandists" were far more damaging to America than any interference from hostile powers like Russia.

When Fox News's State Department correspondent, James Rosen, reported accurate information about North Korea leaked by a member of the Obama State Department, Eric Holder ordered his movements to be tracked, his phone records seized, and went "judge shoppingthe Washington Post wrotethe Freedom of the Press Foundation reported. After the Supreme Court rejected Risen's appeal of an earlier order mandating he testify about the source of information he reported, Risen faced jail time.

After an outcry, Holder finally backed down.

The Associated Press experienced similar surveillance. For two months, the Department of Justice tracked 20 AP reporters' calls, ostensibly over their reporting into a Libyan terrorist's failed plot. Why was reporting on a failed plot so threatening? The AP said it was because the administration wanted to announce the news itself.

Obama himself was notorious for granting interviews with journalists whom he knew would treat him gently -- like Steve Kroft. When Obama accidentally exposed himself to a mildly challenging interview with a local reporter in Saint Louis, that reporter was later "hammered" with IRS audits.

With the Obama Administration, the message to the media was always clear: Report negatively about us, and we'll use the powers at our disposal to make you suffer consequences.

If those journalists currently complaining about the Trump Administration found no such fault with the Obama Administration, perhaps it's because they were all too willing to toe the line.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Now imagine if Trump started tracking a bunch of reporters phone calls, not because they were publishing classified information, but merely because they had published a story that Trump wanted to be the first to release. Or sicced the IRS after reporters who asked tough questions. The howls of outrage would be heard far and wide and those would be the lead stories for days on end as scowling left-wing pundits and politicians would be calling for impeachment.

Here's a couple pieces by the rabidly anti-Trump New York Times:

Source: If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama

labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Only Nixon Harmed a Free Press More

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And from the Huffington Post:

Source: Obama�s Escalating War on Freedom of the Press

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[*All 3 stories continues at the above links*]





And this wasn't the only things that Obama tried. His Administration pushed the idea through his appointees on the FCC^[1]

Source: Why the FCC should keep its nose out of TV newsrooms

Source

© Copyright Original Source

So the Obama Administration wanted the government monitoring, and it is safe to say, soon regulating what they perceived to be fair. They also would be able to see what sort of investigations, including of government corruption, was taking place and what they know therefore giving the Administration all they need to get ahead of scandals before they break. And they planned to mask this Orwellian scheme as a "civil rights" issue (the "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations" part).

Imagine for just a moment the reaction we would be enduring if Trump was proposing this.






1. Another Obama appointee, Ajit Pai, let the cat out of the bag by revaling how "This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced" adding that "I've never had any input into the process."