5 ms·
>Related: ‘Too many people watched’ – UK MP explains why RT was banned Yeah, let's listen to pro-Kremlin RT commentator on the topic of media freedom /s
by r721 3y ago
>Related: ‘Too many people watched’ – UK MP explains why RT was banned
Yeah, let's listen to pro-Kremlin RT commentator on the topic of media freedom /s
- parineum 3y agoThis is kinda like the people who want to save democracy by not letting people vote for who they want to. You can't be pro-press freedom if you're not going to allow biased, dissenting and outright deranged media.
- bediger4000 3y agoNot a good analogy, as the paradox of tolerance shows. I wanted to vote for that kid who registered "Deez Nutz" for president in 2012 Iowa caucus. Iowa Republicans took him off the ballot. Thank goodness our Supreme Court would allow Deez Nuts on the ballot today!
- Vecr 3y agoIf he was actually a kid that's probably why he was taken off.
- bediger4000 3y agoExcept that's not the logic that Trump or SCOTUS applies or the OP for that matter. Trump says the voters should choose. The MAGA folks in general seem to think the rules don't apply to Trump. Amy Coney Barret wanted to "turn down" the metaphorical temperature. The OP says I should have been allowed to vote for who I wanted. I wanted Dees Nuts. Deez Nuts should have stayed on the ballot to allow voter choice and keep me (among many others) from getting upset.
- Vecr 3y agoYou can't be president unless you are at least 35 years old. It's how the constitution works.
- bediger4000 3y agoAh yes, that's what the Colorado Supreme Court thought as well. Turned out to be incorrect.
- parineum 3y ago> Not a good analogy, as the paradox of tolerance shows. It's not a paradox of freedom of speech to allow people who don't support freedom of speech to talk. > I wanted to vote for that kid who registered "Deez Nutz" for president in 2012 Iowa caucus. Iowa Republicans took him off the ballot. Thank goodness our Supreme Court would allow Deez Nuts on the ballot today! I don't know about your specific case but I assume it's very different from a person who already qualified to be on the ballot for a position which was already held by that person. I'm not arguing Trump shouldn't be able to be removed from the ballot if he is indeed unqualified, I'm deriding the folks who _claim_ democracy is at stake if we let people vote for who they want when that's a thin facade for partisan, anti-democratic efforts. The analogy goes to the press freedom limitations because, somehow, eliminating wrong speak always seems to align with the eliminators ideology. Freedom of speech (and the press) exists because the arbiters will always have a bias and that is worse than letting people say whatever they want.
- bediger4000 3y agoAs a Colorado citizen, I sincerely don't think the CO case was a thin facade for partisan, anti democratic efforts. I've met Norma Anderson, one of the plaintiffs, around 2000. She was fairly partisan back then. I'm genuinely surprised she was involved. Also surprised she's still alive, but that's biology, not politics. I read the Denver Post for years. I cancelled my subscription in part because of Krista Kafer's pro-Trump, illogical editorials. Another surprise plaintiff. If this was an anti democratic partisan effort, it was by staunch Republicans.
- diego_sandoval 3y ago"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all"
- Log_out_ 3y agoGeorge from st. Petersburg I believe in your right to express your masters opinion. Alexa gpt from Amazon I want to hear more of your mirror talk.