4 ms·

>I don't get why this would be considered evil or even underhanded. It's normal operating procedure for various government organizations to ask media outlets to

>I don't get why this would be considered evil or even underhanded. It's normal operating procedure for various government organizations to ask media outlets to postpone publication due to time sensitive events. It's a form of censorship, so it's both evil and underhanded. The government does this kind of stuff all the time, and it's really just a tactic to prevent ugly things from coming out whatsoever, though they claim it's temporary. Certain reports have been "requested" to be delayed for well over a year. This is standard procedure, but it's illiberal and undemocratic because it presumes the public doesn't deserve to know what is going on during the time period in which it is possible to change course. In criminal court, we call this tactic "distancing", because it allows tempers to cool off due to the temporal distance between the offense and the trial. From your perspective, it's the US government looking out for itself-- but your perspective is not the only one. Consider that people were willing to riot over this information that was blocked. Do you think that they consider the blocking to be a beneficent act in order to save lives? No, they view it as an empire protecting itself by covering up things it doesn't want seen.

oh_sigh 11y ago
You seem to be arguing against something which is irrelevant to this case at hand. Google (apparently, I haven't followed this) blocked it temporarily, and then it was available again. How does that fit into your statement of "it's really just a tactic to prevent ugly things from coming out whatsoever, though they claim it's temporary"?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
16bytes 11y ago
> It's a form of censorship, so it's both evil and underhanded. I disagree. There are practical limits on speech. Yelling "Fire!" in a theater, defamation, inciting a riot etc. Asking for a few days until a situation starts to calm down? That's evil and underhanded? Do you consider the fact that they delayed announcing the Ferguson trial verdict censorship by the justice department? You don't even have the full context of what was asked for and how. > From your perspective, it's the US government looking out for itself The US Government is looking out for the interests of the US and US citizens? Isn't that exactly what they are there for? > Consider that people were willing to riot over this information that was blocked. Do you think that they consider the blocking to be a beneficent act ... Do you remember this period of time at all? The people rioting over, for example, the Danish Mohammad cartoons demanded them to be taken down and destroyed. They viewed it is implicit US sanctioning of that material that it was available at all from The West. Of course they would have seen it as a positive step; it was what they demanded be done. What they would've disagreed with was that it was a temporary measure instead of permanent.

oh_sigh 11y ago

You seem to be arguing against something which is irrelevant to this case at hand. Google (apparently, I haven't followed this) blocked it temporarily, and then it was available again. How does that fit into your statement of "it's really just a tactic to prevent ugly things from coming out whatsoever, though they claim it's temporary"?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

16bytes 11y ago

> It's a form of censorship, so it's both evil and underhanded. I disagree. There are practical limits on speech. Yelling "Fire!" in a theater, defamation, inciting a riot etc. Asking for a few days until a situation starts to calm down? That's evil and underhanded? Do you consider the fact that they delayed announcing the Ferguson trial verdict censorship by the justice department? You don't even have the full context of what was asked for and how. > From your perspective, it's the US government looking out for itself The US Government is looking out for the interests of the US and US citizens? Isn't that exactly what they are there for? > Consider that people were willing to riot over this information that was blocked. Do you think that they consider the blocking to be a beneficent act ... Do you remember this period of time at all? The people rioting over, for example, the Danish Mohammad cartoons demanded them to be taken down and destroyed. They viewed it is implicit US sanctioning of that material that it was available at all from The West. Of course they would have seen it as a positive step; it was what they demanded be done. What they would've disagreed with was that it was a temporary measure instead of permanent.