11 ms·

It was explained to me when I lived in Japan, that while there are many Japanese media companies that exist independently in Japan, they all have to go to one c

It was explained to me when I lived in Japan, that while there are many Japanese media companies that exist independently in Japan, they all have to go to one central government body to renew their licenses to exist. They get some leeway but it's it's not much

ekianjo 4y ago
all these news organizations in Japan are nothing but government mouthpieces. When Abe was in power the journalists could not stop singing his praises and how smart the whole "Abenomics" was supposed to be.
- wronglyprepaid 4y ago
  - mkr-hn 4y ago
    You sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_2016_Uni... >> 'A 2018 study found that media coverage of Trump led to increased public support for him during the primaries. The study showed that Trump received nearly $2 billion in free media, more than double any other candidate. Political scientist John M. Sides argued that Trump's polling surge was "almost certainly" due to frequent media coverage of his campaign. Sides concluded "Trump is surging in the polls because the news media has consistently focused on him since he announced his candidacy on June 16".[21] Prior to clinching the Republican nomination, Trump received little support from establishment Republicans.[22]' His own party wouldn't even give him the time of day until he was made inevitable by a fawning press gorging itself on easy ad dollars.
    - wronglyprepaid 4y ago
      Not sure how what you cites implies the media was fawning over Trump, if I recall correctly the coverage was not exactly positive, and I explicitly mentioned singing the praises of, not just reporting.
      - mkr-hn 4y ago
        That was going off of memory. I might be wrong about that part.
        wronglyprepaid 4y ago
        Here is an NPR article which shows that media coverage for Trump was less positive and more negative than for the 3 preceding presidents: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage-of-trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage... And you can trust them because they rightly recognize Biden as a historical president: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/02/05/963837953/biden-pledged-historic-cabinet-diversity-heres-how-his-nominees-stack-up https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/20... No matter how much you try and disparage the US press, for the most part the mainstream press are warriors for democracy and one of the reasons why US has such a healthy and vibrant democracy.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
    - monocasa 4y ago
      There was also Clinton's campaign instructing the media to give Trump a disproportionate amount of coverage under the idea that trump would be easy to beat, or at least making him stronger would make whichever Republican won the 2016 primaries weaker. Didn't work out that way. https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaig...
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      This proves quite the opposite once you have a bit of context. This was the strategy of the DNC, they thought Trump would be easier to beat so they promoted his campaign. > How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately "elevated" Donald Trump with its "pied piper" strategy > In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning. > "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously," the Clinton campaign concluded. [0] [0] https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaig...
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Akronymus 4y ago
        Same reason they are funding republican politicians now? https://www.npr.org/2022/06/20/1106256047/why-democrats-are-paying-for-ads-supporting-republican-primary-candidates https://www.npr.org/2022/06/20/1106256047/why-democrats-are-...
  - headsoup 4y ago
    How is Biden historical already? 'actual good,' is that like the no true Scotsman of good?
    - Caboose8685 4y ago
      It almost feels like that account is trying to be another Titania McGrath [0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titania_McGrath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titania_McGrath
    - orwin 4y ago
      It was a troll, re-read his comment.
    - wronglyprepaid 4y ago
      The Biden-Harris economic strategy is producing historic results: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/28/fact-sheet-background-on-president-bidens-remarks-on-the-economy-during-his-first-state-of-the-union-address/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... Also he is the first president with a female black LGBTQI+ press secretary, He also appointed the first female four star admiral and nominated the first black female supreme court justice. He also has a historically strong mandate as more people voted for him than any other presidential candidate in history. I can go on but I think if you Google Biden and historical you will find many more examples. Also CNN made a list here https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/politics/historic-firsts-biden-administration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/politics/historic-firsts-bide... and this was from before he even took office, which should be a good indicator of just how historic he is. And another list by people https://people.com/politics/here-are-all-of-the-historic-firsts-in-president-joe-bidens-administration/ https://people.com/politics/here-are-all-of-the-historic-fir... Biden is likely the most historically significant president in the history of the united states[1]. I think nothing is a better indicator of a robust democracy than press who recognizes greatness when they see it. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/19/fast-facts-record-firsts-in-president-bidens-first-year/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
      - 4y ago
  - andrepd 4y ago
    It's funny because not only are you making the most un-original joke possible, you are also factually wrong (see sibling post).
    - wronglyprepaid 4y ago
  - noSyncCloud 4y ago
    Disappointing that this kind of exclusionary rhetoric gets play on HN.
    - mkr-hn 4y ago
      I'm a bit dulled to it these days, so that part didn't even register.
    - avgcorrection 4y ago
      Exclusionary?
    - wronglyprepaid 4y ago
      Being against hate and for protecting black and Trans bodies and birthing people is not exclusionary.
thematrixturtle 4y ago
It's not about "licenses to exist", but access to the press clubs (kisha clubs). Basically, if the government doesn't like what you print/say, you get frozen out the clubs and hence out of all government news. https://freespeechdebate.com/discuss/an-impregnable-fortress-of-information/ https://freespeechdebate.com/discuss/an-impregnable-fortress...
- SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
  Kinda like how the threat of revoking the press's access to the White House keeps them toeing the establishment line https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/white-house-press-passes.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/white-house-press-passes...
  - WillPostForFood 4y ago
    That worked well. /s
- guerrilla 4y ago
  This is the same in every country, including the US where entire agencies will just stop talking to you if you piss them off (especially police departments.) It's one of the ways we get all this propaganda even though we have a nominally "free" press.
  - nverno 4y ago
    It's not "the same" at all. It's a matter of degrees, which make a huge difference.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      It's no different at all. You'll be excluded from press clubs and conferences just the same. Identical situation.
      - nverno 4y ago
tkgally 4y ago
There is no licensing of the print or online media in Japan. However, there are a number of factors that effectively limit the freedom of many media outlets. The kisha clubs [1], which control media access to government officials and the police, are restricted to reporters from major media organizations. The tabloid press frequently complains about those restrictions and use those restrictions as justification for their less savory reporting methods. The libel and privacy laws are fairly strict [2, 3] and have been tightened in recent years, making publications more hesitant to report negative or personal information about individuals, including politicians. Some religious groups have used those laws to suppress negative reporting; as soon as I noticed on Friday afternoon that the mainstream media weren’t giving the name of the religious group, I wondered if fear of lawsuits was the reason. (I still don’t know.) Extremist groups have targeted Japanese media, and have sometimes attacked [4] or killed [5] journalists, for reports that the groups didn’t like about the Imperial family or historical matters. This can make journalists hesitant to raise controversial topics. The major newspapers are published by large conglomerates that have diverse business interests. The weekly magazines have, over the years, reported many examples of stories that were suppressed by their larger competitors because of conflicts of interest. An amusing one that I remember is when a magazine was not allowed to include the term shōgi daoshi—literally, “falling over like shogi pieces”—in their regular advertisement in a daily newspaper; they wanted to use it to describe an accident where people were crushed in and killed in a crowd, but that newspaper ran a major shogi tournament and wouldn’t allow the term shōgi to be used in a negative context. Some weekly magazines that frequently publish reports of salacious scandals about celebrities and politicians refrain from publishing similar reports about well-known writers, because their parent companies depend on work by those writers for other publications. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisha_club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisha_club [2] https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws [3] https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts/amended-japan-privacy-law-will-come-into-effect-in-april-2022/ https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts... [4] https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/噂の眞相 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/噂の眞相 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomohiro_Kojiri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomohiro_Kojiri
- dmurray 4y ago
  > An amusing one that I remember is when a magazine was not allowed to include the term shōgi daoshi—literally, “falling over like shogi pieces” An amusing one on multiple levels. Standard shogi pieces don't fall over! They're not miniature statues like in Western chess, but flat reversible tiles [0]. It's like it was written by a Western journalist who needed to translate his idiom into Japanese. [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Shogi_board_pieces_and_komadai.jpg/300px-Shogi_board_pieces_and_komadai.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Sh...
pmoriarty 4y ago
In the US all radio and TV stations also have to get and renew licenses from the government to be allowed to broadcast.
- iso1631 4y ago
  And online people have to effectively renew a license from Google to broadcast
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
    Not really. TV station: You operate without a license or outside of its bounds, you've committed a criminal act. The government can use their monopoly on force to compel you to give up your resources (fines) or your freedom (jail time). Youtube: You break the terms of service and are no longer allowed to use their service. There are other video platforms, there are ways to self host video. No one needs a "license" from Google to get their video content available to the world. If you want to swim in Google's pool and get the benefits of hanging around the other millions of people in Google's pool, maybe it's a good idea not to take a ** in it.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      Google markets YouTube as a platform for everyone. Anyone can open an account. There is no membership fee, or political party affiliation required. Their advertising rates and revenue depend on having the largest possible audience. They present themselves as a "public square" and thus should be obligated to allow free speech as one has at a public square.
      - iso1631 4y ago
        A public square in what country? There are checks and balances on a democracy that do not involve leaving the country. The government can not legally damage you without massive oversight. There are no such checks and balances on google, and they can destroy your livelihood on a whim without even acknowledging you exist
oblak 4y ago
eloff 4y ago
Canada wants to implement this under the Trudeau liberal government. It's been a little disturbing to watch a Canadian liberal government take steps in the direction of totalitarian control since the beginning of the pandemic. When was the last time the political right has positioned themselves in opposition to the left in defense of free speech and individual rights and freedoms? Strange times.
- jhbadger 4y ago
  It's not just Canada. "Free Speech" is no longer a part of modern left-of-center policy in general. Even the American ACLU no longer defines itself as a defender of free speech the way it used to. The argument (for what it's worth) is that the far-right is defending hate speech through the concept of free speech and so free speech is no longer worth defending as an ideal.
  - jrgoff 4y ago
    Would you mind linking to a source about the ACLUs changing relationship to free speech? I just looked at their website and it seems like they are still centering free speech as one of their major issues and a list of actions they have taken in recent years includes support of e.g. the NRA and an anti-muslim group.
    - spinach 4y ago
      You can tell by their twitter that their actions don't match their stated stance. They've become a woke social justice organization like many other institutions, repeating mantras such as: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1269413639464849409 https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1269413639464849409
      - jrgoff 4y ago
        While I can see why that tweet leads you to categorize them as "woke", I don't personally see how that has anything to do with their actions matching their stated stances, particularly as it relates to free speech.

ekianjo 4y ago

all these news organizations in Japan are nothing but government mouthpieces. When Abe was in power the journalists could not stop singing his praises and how smart the whole "Abenomics" was supposed to be.

wronglyprepaid 4y ago
- mkr-hn 4y ago
  You sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_2016_Uni... >> 'A 2018 study found that media coverage of Trump led to increased public support for him during the primaries. The study showed that Trump received nearly $2 billion in free media, more than double any other candidate. Political scientist John M. Sides argued that Trump's polling surge was "almost certainly" due to frequent media coverage of his campaign. Sides concluded "Trump is surging in the polls because the news media has consistently focused on him since he announced his candidacy on June 16".[21] Prior to clinching the Republican nomination, Trump received little support from establishment Republicans.[22]' His own party wouldn't even give him the time of day until he was made inevitable by a fawning press gorging itself on easy ad dollars.
  - wronglyprepaid 4y ago
    Not sure how what you cites implies the media was fawning over Trump, if I recall correctly the coverage was not exactly positive, and I explicitly mentioned singing the praises of, not just reporting.
    - mkr-hn 4y ago
      That was going off of memory. I might be wrong about that part.
      - wronglyprepaid 4y ago
        Here is an NPR article which shows that media coverage for Trump was less positive and more negative than for the 3 preceding presidents: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage-of-trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage... And you can trust them because they rightly recognize Biden as a historical president: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/02/05/963837953/biden-pledged-historic-cabinet-diversity-heres-how-his-nominees-stack-up https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/20... No matter how much you try and disparage the US press, for the most part the mainstream press are warriors for democracy and one of the reasons why US has such a healthy and vibrant democracy.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
  - monocasa 4y ago
    There was also Clinton's campaign instructing the media to give Trump a disproportionate amount of coverage under the idea that trump would be easy to beat, or at least making him stronger would make whichever Republican won the 2016 primaries weaker. Didn't work out that way. https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaig...
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    This proves quite the opposite once you have a bit of context. This was the strategy of the DNC, they thought Trump would be easier to beat so they promoted his campaign. > How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately "elevated" Donald Trump with its "pied piper" strategy > In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning. > "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously," the Clinton campaign concluded. [0] [0] https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaig...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Akronymus 4y ago
      Same reason they are funding republican politicians now? https://www.npr.org/2022/06/20/1106256047/why-democrats-are-paying-for-ads-supporting-republican-primary-candidates https://www.npr.org/2022/06/20/1106256047/why-democrats-are-...
- headsoup 4y ago
  How is Biden historical already? 'actual good,' is that like the no true Scotsman of good?
  - Caboose8685 4y ago
    It almost feels like that account is trying to be another Titania McGrath [0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titania_McGrath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titania_McGrath
  - orwin 4y ago
    It was a troll, re-read his comment.
  - wronglyprepaid 4y ago
    The Biden-Harris economic strategy is producing historic results: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/28/fact-sheet-background-on-president-bidens-remarks-on-the-economy-during-his-first-state-of-the-union-address/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... Also he is the first president with a female black LGBTQI+ press secretary, He also appointed the first female four star admiral and nominated the first black female supreme court justice. He also has a historically strong mandate as more people voted for him than any other presidential candidate in history. I can go on but I think if you Google Biden and historical you will find many more examples. Also CNN made a list here https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/politics/historic-firsts-biden-administration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/politics/historic-firsts-bide... and this was from before he even took office, which should be a good indicator of just how historic he is. And another list by people https://people.com/politics/here-are-all-of-the-historic-firsts-in-president-joe-bidens-administration/ https://people.com/politics/here-are-all-of-the-historic-fir... Biden is likely the most historically significant president in the history of the united states[1]. I think nothing is a better indicator of a robust democracy than press who recognizes greatness when they see it. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/19/fast-facts-record-firsts-in-president-bidens-first-year/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
    - 4y ago
- andrepd 4y ago
  It's funny because not only are you making the most un-original joke possible, you are also factually wrong (see sibling post).
  - wronglyprepaid 4y ago
- noSyncCloud 4y ago
  Disappointing that this kind of exclusionary rhetoric gets play on HN.
  - mkr-hn 4y ago
    I'm a bit dulled to it these days, so that part didn't even register.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    Exclusionary?
  - wronglyprepaid 4y ago
    Being against hate and for protecting black and Trans bodies and birthing people is not exclusionary.

thematrixturtle 4y ago

It's not about "licenses to exist", but access to the press clubs (kisha clubs). Basically, if the government doesn't like what you print/say, you get frozen out the clubs and hence out of all government news. https://freespeechdebate.com/discuss/an-impregnable-fortress-of-information/ https://freespeechdebate.com/discuss/an-impregnable-fortress...

SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
Kinda like how the threat of revoking the press's access to the White House keeps them toeing the establishment line https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/white-house-press-passes.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/white-house-press-passes...
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  That worked well. /s
guerrilla 4y ago
This is the same in every country, including the US where entire agencies will just stop talking to you if you piss them off (especially police departments.) It's one of the ways we get all this propaganda even though we have a nominally "free" press.
- nverno 4y ago
  It's not "the same" at all. It's a matter of degrees, which make a huge difference.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    It's no different at all. You'll be excluded from press clubs and conferences just the same. Identical situation.
    - nverno 4y ago

tkgally 4y ago

There is no licensing of the print or online media in Japan. However, there are a number of factors that effectively limit the freedom of many media outlets. The kisha clubs [1], which control media access to government officials and the police, are restricted to reporters from major media organizations. The tabloid press frequently complains about those restrictions and use those restrictions as justification for their less savory reporting methods. The libel and privacy laws are fairly strict [2, 3] and have been tightened in recent years, making publications more hesitant to report negative or personal information about individuals, including politicians. Some religious groups have used those laws to suppress negative reporting; as soon as I noticed on Friday afternoon that the mainstream media weren’t giving the name of the religious group, I wondered if fear of lawsuits was the reason. (I still don’t know.) Extremist groups have targeted Japanese media, and have sometimes attacked [4] or killed [5] journalists, for reports that the groups didn’t like about the Imperial family or historical matters. This can make journalists hesitant to raise controversial topics. The major newspapers are published by large conglomerates that have diverse business interests. The weekly magazines have, over the years, reported many examples of stories that were suppressed by their larger competitors because of conflicts of interest. An amusing one that I remember is when a magazine was not allowed to include the term shōgi daoshi—literally, “falling over like shogi pieces”—in their regular advertisement in a daily newspaper; they wanted to use it to describe an accident where people were crushed in and killed in a crowd, but that newspaper ran a major shogi tournament and wouldn’t allow the term shōgi to be used in a negative context. Some weekly magazines that frequently publish reports of salacious scandals about celebrities and politicians refrain from publishing similar reports about well-known writers, because their parent companies depend on work by those writers for other publications. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisha_club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisha_club [2] https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws [3] https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts/amended-japan-privacy-law-will-come-into-effect-in-april-2022/ https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts... [4] https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/噂の眞相 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/噂の眞相 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomohiro_Kojiri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomohiro_Kojiri

dmurray 4y ago
> An amusing one that I remember is when a magazine was not allowed to include the term shōgi daoshi—literally, “falling over like shogi pieces” An amusing one on multiple levels. Standard shogi pieces don't fall over! They're not miniature statues like in Western chess, but flat reversible tiles [0]. It's like it was written by a Western journalist who needed to translate his idiom into Japanese. [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Shogi_board_pieces_and_komadai.jpg/300px-Shogi_board_pieces_and_komadai.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Sh...

pmoriarty 4y ago

In the US all radio and TV stations also have to get and renew licenses from the government to be allowed to broadcast.

iso1631 4y ago
And online people have to effectively renew a license from Google to broadcast
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
  Not really. TV station: You operate without a license or outside of its bounds, you've committed a criminal act. The government can use their monopoly on force to compel you to give up your resources (fines) or your freedom (jail time). Youtube: You break the terms of service and are no longer allowed to use their service. There are other video platforms, there are ways to self host video. No one needs a "license" from Google to get their video content available to the world. If you want to swim in Google's pool and get the benefits of hanging around the other millions of people in Google's pool, maybe it's a good idea not to take a ** in it.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    Google markets YouTube as a platform for everyone. Anyone can open an account. There is no membership fee, or political party affiliation required. Their advertising rates and revenue depend on having the largest possible audience. They present themselves as a "public square" and thus should be obligated to allow free speech as one has at a public square.
    - iso1631 4y ago
      A public square in what country? There are checks and balances on a democracy that do not involve leaving the country. The government can not legally damage you without massive oversight. There are no such checks and balances on google, and they can destroy your livelihood on a whim without even acknowledging you exist

oblak 4y ago

eloff 4y ago

Canada wants to implement this under the Trudeau liberal government. It's been a little disturbing to watch a Canadian liberal government take steps in the direction of totalitarian control since the beginning of the pandemic. When was the last time the political right has positioned themselves in opposition to the left in defense of free speech and individual rights and freedoms? Strange times.

jhbadger 4y ago
It's not just Canada. "Free Speech" is no longer a part of modern left-of-center policy in general. Even the American ACLU no longer defines itself as a defender of free speech the way it used to. The argument (for what it's worth) is that the far-right is defending hate speech through the concept of free speech and so free speech is no longer worth defending as an ideal.
- jrgoff 4y ago
  Would you mind linking to a source about the ACLUs changing relationship to free speech? I just looked at their website and it seems like they are still centering free speech as one of their major issues and a list of actions they have taken in recent years includes support of e.g. the NRA and an anti-muslim group.
  - spinach 4y ago
    You can tell by their twitter that their actions don't match their stated stance. They've become a woke social justice organization like many other institutions, repeating mantras such as: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1269413639464849409 https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1269413639464849409
    - jrgoff 4y ago
      While I can see why that tweet leads you to categorize them as "woke", I don't personally see how that has anything to do with their actions matching their stated stances, particularly as it relates to free speech.