3 ms·
Their speech was not actually suppressed, or else we wouldn't be talking about them. In fact their speech was protected by the courts, as intended. That the U
by aa-jv 4mo ago
Their speech was not actually suppressed, or else we wouldn't be talking about them. In fact their speech was protected by the courts, as intended. That the US Military/Industrial Intelligence Complex nevertheless violated their human rights extra-judiciously is another thing, and I concur with the cynicism over the whole 'phony human rights' stance of the US, especially given its recent overt support for actual genocide.
But in our circle, members of these countries not currently being bombed into oblivion - in contrast, look at the "Witness J .. Witness K .. Witness L .." situation in Australia's secret star court ..
- mrtksn 4mo agoSo in other words it as Idi Amin of Uganda said: There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech :) Just because you eventually go free after your life gets ruined by the government doesn't really make you better than Uganda. In those shitty countries they too go free eventually.
- aa-jv 4mo agoSpeech isn't enough. There has to be freedom of action, too. And yes, constant vigilance is required for freedom. >Just because you eventually go free after your life gets ruined by the government doesn't really make you better than Uganda. In those shitty countries they too go free eventually. A truly imperialist perspective. None of this is relevant for any government engaged in genocide, anyway. My freedom of speech means nothing if the government under which its right is granted is, meanwhile, massacring innocents at atrocious scale ..