If that's the argument, then I still say "fuck Adams". He's defending someone for whom there's multiple video evidence of him stomping on people's rights to spe

If that's the argument, then I still say "fuck Adams". He's defending someone for whom there's multiple video evidence of him stomping on people's rights to speak freely and ask questions. Yesterday someone showed me a video of a man being removed from the room for asking a question. And looking over Adams' backlog, he's faking news: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156711454356/president-trump-and-the-other-countries http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156711454356/president-trump-an... > "I don't know what was in those phone calls, but Australia and Mexico were lecturing Trump, and Trump let them know who was king, booyah!". Actually, no. The Australian PM went to Trump cap-in-hand, asking him to maintain an existing bargain. He couldn't afford to get Trump offside because the call was about a very explosive issue back home, and the existing bargain was his 'out' from it. He was pilloried here at home because he didn't stand up to Trump when the content of the call was made public. But no, Adams just makes shit up and decides "fuck those guys", defending a demagogue who does the same. Free speech does not include a right to lie about others (see libel/slander). The climate of erosion of free speech is not most threatened by Twitter, it's the current US administration and their fact-blind supporters like Adams that's the real risk.