Quote:

---

I applaud his intentions- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

I applaud his intentions- GSTRING

Of course you do. Because nothing says "freedom" like a government-controlled press.
- SIGNY

You would know being an RT fangirl. - GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

At least you read 4 words of my post - I guess that's something.
OR did you read past that and see me address that?
"How long before opposition forces accuse Macron of abuse of power and restricting Free Speech??"
I guess "not long" is the answer!- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

I applaud his [Macron's] intentions - GSTRING original quote

... to make our free press more accountable ... Ya got me, that is what I want.- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Are we children, that we need to be supervised in what we read?- SIGNY

Better if we read the truth, isn't it? I know, you'd probably prefer the Chaos Theory that wants it so Americans don't know what to believe.- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

I applaud his intentions .... Someone has to start the process though, so hat's off for him jumping in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
YOU, OTOH, are CLEARLY in the camp of a government-controlled press. You said it yourself: I applaud his intentions...

---

... to make our free press more accountable ... Ya got me, that is what I want.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Are we children, that we need to be supervised in what we read?

---

Better if we read the truth, isn't it?

I know, you'd probably prefer the Chaos Theory that wants it so Americans don't know what to believe. Who was that Russian who theorized that disruption strategy? Gertrude Assimoff? Bert and Gertie?

==============================

---

Fake news is 95% of what sig posts. The truth is toxic to trolls like her.


T

Quote:

---

The Biggest Secret: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror

JAMES RISEN, former NYT reporter

One reason that officials didn’t want to conduct aggressive leak investigations was that they regularly engaged in quiet negotiations with the press to try to stop the publication of sensitive national security stories. Government officials seemed to understand that a get-tough approach to leaks might lead to the breakdown of this informal arrangement.

At the time, I usually went along with these negotiations. About a year before 9/11, for instance, I learned that the CIA had sent case officers to Afghanistan to meet with Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the rebel Northern Alliance, which was fighting the Taliban government. The CIA officers had been sent to try to convince Massoud to help the Americans go after Osama bin Laden, who was then living in Afghanistan under the Taliban’s protection.

When I called the CIA for comment, then-CIA Director George Tenet called me back personally to ask me not to run the story. He told me the disclosure would threaten the safety of the CIA officers in Afghanistan. I agreed.

...

My experience with that story and subsequent ones made me much less willing to go along with later government requests to hold or kill stories. And that ultimately set me on a collision course with the editors at the New York Times, who were still quite willing to cooperate with the government.
...

After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration began asking the press to kill stories more frequently. They did it so often that I became convinced the administration was invoking national security to quash stories that were merely politically embarrassing. In late 2002, for instance, I called the CIA for comment on a story about the existence of a secret CIA prison in Thailand that had just been created to house Al Qaeda detainees, including Abu Zubaydah. In response, Bush administration officials called the Times and got the paper to kill the story. I disagreed with the paper’s decision because I believed that the White House was just trying to cover up the fact that the CIA had begun to set up secret prisons.

...

By 2002, I was also starting to clash with the editors over our coverage of the Bush administration’s claims about pre-war intelligence on Iraq. My stories raising questions about the intelligence, particularly the administration’s claims of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, were being cut, buried, or held out of the paper altogether.

---

Quote:

---

****

Finally, in the late summer of 2004, as I was leaving a meeting with the source, I said I had to know what the secret was. Suddenly, as we were standing at the source’s front door, everything spilled out. Over the course of about 10 minutes, the source provided a detailed outline of the NSA’s massive post-9/11 domestic spying program, which I later learned was code-named Stellar Wind.

The source told me that the NSA had been wiretapping Americans without search warrants, without court approval. The NSA was also collecting the phone and email records of millions of Americans. The operation had been authorized by the president. The Bush administration was engaged in a massive domestic spying program that was probably illegal and unconstitutional, and only a handful of carefully selected people in the government knew about it.

...

By the fall of 2004, we had a draft of a story. I felt it was time to go through the front door, so I decided on impulse to try to bluff my way to the top of the NSA. I called the NSA’s press spokesperson, Judy Emmel, and told her I had to talk to Hayden immediately. I said it was urgent, and I couldn’t tell her what it was about.

She got Hayden on the phone right away. I was shocked that my bluff had worked, but now that I had Hayden, I had to think fast about what I wanted to ask him. I decided to read him the first few paragraphs of the draft Lichtblau and I were writing. Lichtblau was sitting next to me, staring intently as I read Hayden the top of the story on the phone. I was sitting in front of my computer, ready to transcribe whatever Hayden would say.

After I read the first few paragraphs, Hayden let out an audible gasp and then stammered for a moment. Finally, he said that whatever the NSA was doing was legal and operationally effective. I pressed him further, but he refused to say more and hung up. Hayden had all but confirmed the story.

...

Within days, Hayden called Taubman and asked him not to run the NSA story.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Fake news is 95% of what sig posts. The truth is toxic to trolls like her.

---

Quote:

---

Fake news and libel is 95% of what THUGR posts. The truth is toxic to trolls like him. So is freedom of the press.

---

Quote:

---

The government wants the kids to be smart about the sources of their news, and which ones to believe.

---

Quote:

---

In what was officially a noble attempt to eliminate online hate speech in social media, and unofficially a devious crackdown on free speech, on January 1, 2018, Germany passed a law that forces websites to censor content deemed illegal under the new law and have it deleted within 24-hours. Ironically, as we observed last week, just hours after the law's passage it immediately backfired when it claimed its first victim, a German satirical magazine’s Twitter account which "parodied anti-Muslim comment."

Incidentally, this perfectly predictable if "totally unexpected" outcome is exactly what we, and many others had warned would happen. And now, it is finally dawning on Germany that any time the government gets involved in defining what is allowed and what isn't - especially when it comes to that most fundamental of liberties, free speech - the result is always a disaster.

According to Germany's top-selling, and most popular newspaper, Bild, the new German law meant to curtail online hate speech is "stifling free speech and making martyrs out of anti-immigrant politicians whose posts are deleted."

The law which took effect on Jan. 1 can impose fines of up to 50 million euros ($60 million) on sites that fail to remove hate speech promptly and threatens the profitability of such social media giants as Twitter and Facebook.

"Please spare us the thought police!" read the headline in Wednesday's Bild above an article that called the law a "sin" against freedom of opinion enshrined in Germany's constitution, Reuters reported.

While the law requires social media sites to delete or block obviously criminal content within 24 hours, Bild Editor-in-Chief Julian Reichelt said it could be applied against anything and anyone since there was no definition of what was "manifestly unlawful" in most cases. Intended to prevent radical groups from gaining influence, "it was having precisely the opposite effect," he warned.

"The law against online hate speech failed on its very first day. It should be abolished immediately," Reichelt wrote, adding that the law was turning AfD politicians into "opinion martyrs".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KPO:

Zerohedge again, yawn. Why don't you share news stories that aren't already spun to fit your worldview?

---

Because sig is a troll


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

I applaud his intentions- GSTRING

Of course you do. Because nothing says "freedom" like a government-controlled press.
- SIGNY

You would know being an RT fangirl. - GSTRING

---

Liar.
YOU, OTOH, are CLEARLY in the camp of a government-controlled press. You said it yourself: I applaud his intentions

Quote:

---

At least you read 4 words of my post - I guess that's something.
OR did you read past that and see me address that?
"How long before opposition forces accuse Macron of abuse of power and restricting Free Speech??"
I guess "not long" is the answer!- GSTRING

---

Oh, I read the whole thing. Enough to know where YOU stand on the issue!

Yanno, I have never argued for a controlled press. You, otoh ...

Are we children, that we need to be supervised in what we read?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Another fun thread where G-String tried to delete his idiotic ravings, but SIGs captured many of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CAPTAINCRUNCH:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Another fun thread where G-String tried to delete his idiotic ravings, but SIGs captured many of them.

---

Congrats, as of now you are the dumbest of the dumb fucks on this board, JSF. Do you see any posts from “G?” They weren’t deleted by me. How long have been here? Not long enough - or smart enough - to know how deleting posts works obviously. The entire username was “mysteriously” deleted. Pretty funny really - a thread about free speech and the posts from one user get deleted. That’s the work of either Russkie or Sig-4-brains I’d wager. The only question is did they threaten Haken or just bitch and moan him into submission?

---