I see what you're driving at -- but on balance I just don't see a slippery slope here. Whether the executive branch is technically entitled to make such pronou

I see what you're driving at -- but on balance I just don't see a slippery slope here. Whether the executive branch is technically entitled to make such pronouncements or not -- or whether they "should" -- their rationale is that this isn't so much a basic press freedom issue, as a shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater issue. I can see some pushback on that stance -- but not all that much. And at the end of the day - it's not like their pronouncements have any coercive weight. It's just an instance of them using their office as a bully pulpit (which every presidential office has, to one degree or another). That is to say: an exercise of their own freedom of speech. And I definite get GG's point also -- that the government's "stance" doesn't need to be coercive for it to be effective. But he's missing the boat, nonetheless. He's making Rogan out to be the likes of Galileo or Andrei Sakharov. Or a real-life Winston Smith. I don't where Greenwald thinks he's going with that -- but that's where (to my ears) his language becomes manipulative and intellectually dishonest.