4 ms·

Erdogan is within his right to censor. Does that mean he does not censor?

candiodari 9y ago
Erdogan is preventing journalists and private individuals from publishing (or even talking about in some cases) their opinions. He does it to hide his own crimes. This is obviously very different from shutting down a government program. Trump is the employer of those people. He can tell them what to do. They are free to go home and say whatever they want, even about these decisions (and they are, in fact doing that). Censorship would be Trump arresting the journalists that reported this.
- cryptarch 9y ago
  I consider dismantling environmental agencies criminal in the ethical sense, but US law obviously does not consider it criminal. Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law? You call what Erdogan does criminal, but I'm under the impression you're using "the letter of the law" as a measure for Trump, and "what's ethical" for Erdogan. As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    > I consider dismantling environmental agencies criminal in the ethical sense, but US law obviously does not consider it criminal. I don't understand that. Surely this was plainly clear during the election ... and the electorate made it's viewpoint clear. Therefore in my opinion it is not just morally right, but an actual moral duty for the US government to at least tone down the climate research. We live in a government for the people, by the people. It is NOT a government for the climate. US government climate actions are predicated upon a majority of the US population not just agreeing in principle, but willing to pay (a lot I might add) to make it happen. > Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law? Yes. > As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either. I fail to see how this is even a little strange. Did you know Obama did the same ? And so did Bush and Clinton. All have removed reporters and refused questions. And frankly, in most cases, for pretty good reasons. At least in the Trump and Obama cases I've seen the videos, and ... I mean sorry. I may not agree with Trump, but I agree that those reporters went too far, were warned a few times, and when they insisted, the president walked away. That, to me, doesn't seem controversial at all. I don't think I'd have similar patience, I especially would not have the patience Obama had with reporters (remember ? The birth certificate. Perhaps (being flexible with perhaps) it was a newsworthy question for a week or two, but 2 years later they were still pestering him)

Erdogan is preventing journalists and private individuals from publishing (or even talking about in some cases) their opinions. He does it to hide his own crimes. This is obviously very different from shutting down a government program. Trump is the employer of those people. He can tell them what to do. They are free to go home and say whatever they want, even about these decisions (and they are, in fact doing that). Censorship would be Trump arresting the journalists that reported this.

cryptarch 9y ago
I consider dismantling environmental agencies criminal in the ethical sense, but US law obviously does not consider it criminal. Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law? You call what Erdogan does criminal, but I'm under the impression you're using "the letter of the law" as a measure for Trump, and "what's ethical" for Erdogan. As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either.
- candiodari 9y ago
  > I consider dismantling environmental agencies criminal in the ethical sense, but US law obviously does not consider it criminal. I don't understand that. Surely this was plainly clear during the election ... and the electorate made it's viewpoint clear. Therefore in my opinion it is not just morally right, but an actual moral duty for the US government to at least tone down the climate research. We live in a government for the people, by the people. It is NOT a government for the climate. US government climate actions are predicated upon a majority of the US population not just agreeing in principle, but willing to pay (a lot I might add) to make it happen. > Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law? Yes. > As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either. I fail to see how this is even a little strange. Did you know Obama did the same ? And so did Bush and Clinton. All have removed reporters and refused questions. And frankly, in most cases, for pretty good reasons. At least in the Trump and Obama cases I've seen the videos, and ... I mean sorry. I may not agree with Trump, but I agree that those reporters went too far, were warned a few times, and when they insisted, the president walked away. That, to me, doesn't seem controversial at all. I don't think I'd have similar patience, I especially would not have the patience Obama had with reporters (remember ? The birth certificate. Perhaps (being flexible with perhaps) it was a newsworthy question for a week or two, but 2 years later they were still pestering him)