Vladimir Putin Signs Sweeping Internet-Censorship Bills (arstechnica.com) 420
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]
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]
To prevent discourse (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Well yea, but it will also make it illegal to claim the Earth is flat so... win some, lose some, am I right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
I suppose that depends on what the Russian Government defines as "fake news"...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 r
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the needle is pegged to the hard right.
A characteristic of needles is that they swing.
Re: (Score:2)
And, NO COLLUSION!
Re: (Score:2)
You noticed that, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 stat
Re: To prevent discourse (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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... [facebook.com]
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 thes
It's not an insult... (Score:2)
... 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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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-... [haaretz.com]
Go ahead and insist that you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
He was shot 9 times in the back.
Worst suicide I ever saw.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Clever girls (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 literall
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Literal partisan blinders. You think Bill Kristol [medium.com] is a Democrat??
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 inc
Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Public Service Announcement [xkcd.com]: 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: (Score:3)
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
Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Who calls ideas they don't like "hate speech"?
Hint: it ain't Trump.
No, he calls it fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
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:Clever girls (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
The second North Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Amen to that. I can speak Russian more or less fluently, but I most certainly won't visit Russia any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the USA...
I live in Armenia.
Re:The second North Korea (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the USA...
I live in Armenia.
It's spelled AMERICA, pal.
Re: (Score:3)
New Zealand (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:New Zealand (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course not, that's good censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Look! Over there! Something shiny!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Unreliable (Score:5, Interesting)
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. [ceicdata.com] 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.
Signing laws to stop opinions (Score:2)
in soviet russia we publish for you! (Score:2)
in soviet russia we publish for you!
A coward (Score:2)
Sound like he needs to make criticism illegal because he's a weak kneed coward.
Surprised, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Great Leap Backwards (Score:2)
What next? (Score:3)
People in the west used to ridicule for this (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with this (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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:nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
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/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: nothing new (Score:2, Informative)
Even after ratifification, it only applied to the federal government. It until the 14th amendment that it changed.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
The court jester (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
>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
Re:nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
No moron it's not the free market. You people have lost your minds.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
"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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
In whataboutism we can trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Next week, Trump attempts the same (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, Trump loves laws like this, he praises Putin and Xi.
Re: (Score:2)
You should care about both sides doing this.
Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 lef
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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 wi