We have been discussing how Hillary Clinton and other Democratic leaders have turned from private censorship to good old-fashioned state censorship. They have called upon their counterparts in England, France, and Germany to prevent the restoration of free speech protections with censorship laws — laws that would be unconstitutional in the United States. The British have already responded to such urgent calls and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently repeated this call for global censorship at the United Nations to the applause of diplomats and media alike. Now the German left has responded with the the ruling Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) calling for censorship before, to use Clinton’s words, “it is too late” and free speech is barred on Twitter.
According to a report by the business newspaper Handelsblatt, SPD members are concerned that Twitter will now allow too much free speech and curtail Twitter’s massive censorship system. Jens Zimmermann MP declared
“The Federal Office of Justice must therefore take Twitter under stricter supervision and act quickly and decisively in the event of violations.” The Germans are threatening not just the company but Musk himself if he does not censor viewpoints: If Twitter does not meet the requirements, there are penalties not only against the company, but also against the managers responsible.”
Clinton and other Democratic leaders are singing to the choir on censorship. Germany has long been one of the most hostile countries to free speech in the West.
Germany has proven the fallacy of changing minds through threatened prosecution. While I am certainly sympathetic to the Germans in seeking to end the scourge of fascism, I have long been a critic of the German laws prohibiting certain symbols and phrases. I view it as not just a violation of free speech but a futile effort to stamp out extremism by barring certain symbols. Instead, extremists have rallied around an underground culture and embraced symbols that closely resemble those banned by the government. I fail to see how arresting a man for a Hitler ringtone is achieving a meaningful level of deterrence, even if you ignore the free speech implications.
We discussed how Germany is extending its criminalization of speech to the Internet. Germany imposed a legal regime that would allow fining social networks such as Facebook up to 500,000 euros ($522,000) for each day the platform leaves a “fake news” story up without deleting it. YouTube was fined by the country in an effort to force the company to remove views that the government considers disinformation on Covid.
None of this, mind you, has put a dent in the ranks of actual fascists and haters. Neo-Nazis are holding huge rallies by adopting new symbols and coded words while Germany arrested a man on a train because he had a Hitler ring tone on his phone.
The impact of these laws was evident in a recent poll of German citizens. Only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. 59% of Germans did not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. And just 17% felt free to express themselves on the Internet.
“The Federal Office of Justice must therefore take Twitter under stricter supervision and act quickly and decisively in the event of violations.”
“Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side.” (“Mein Kampf”)
Apparently, the Germans have learned nothing from their sordid history of state censorship.
OT, but somewhat related: LATimes Op-Ed Says Press “Failing Americans’ By Treating Both Parties Equally
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/11/los_angeles_times_oped_says_press_failing_americans_by_treating_both_parties_equally.html
“America’s future hangs on the defeat of the right-wing extremist authoritarians who have seized the name of Lincoln’s party. If we lose, news corporations and journalists with a misplaced sense of ‘balance,’ ‘neutrality’ and ‘nonpartisanship’ will bear a considerable share of the blame.”
What?
As opposed to the left wing extremist authoritarians currently in charge, who, not coincidentally, occupy the party of Jefferson Davis.
So far less than 40 comments and Sevlaz has “opined” about ten times. This is not normal.
hullbobby wrote, “So far less than 40 comments and Sevlaz has “opined” about ten times. This is not normal.”
Were you expecting more or less of Svelaz’s comments?
P.S. Svelaz has only “opined” five times our of forty-two comments. Only 12% of the comments are from Svelaz.
Well we already had the 5th grade history lesson from Svelaz so now we can go on to the latest rising of Hilary Clinton in her repeating role as the Sea Hag from Beowulf. I would think she is dangerously close, already, to slander and may be on the road to libel. She may remember she has no immunity these days and Elon Musk has resources that could be quite useful if he should like to push a libel suit all the way to the Supreme Court and challenge the previous Sullivan precedent. Or we could just call on Beowulf to do his magic
Since Musk is also the head of SpaceX he might have some interesting comments and decisions to make if the Germans and French astronauts want to ride one of his Falcons to the International Space Station.
One of the nice things about an interconnected world is that if you step on someone’s toes here you may find the pain manifested somewhere else and the reprisal may come from a third place.
If we had a real president instead of the present mentally challenged fool, our government might have made that point. Germans and French and English all have billions invested here and should be reminded of that.
Also they might have been reminded the the LNG ships from the US have had to reduce their speed to save fuel and reduce carbon emissions and so German and English homes may have to drop the thermostats even more. The French wisely kept the Nuclear power intact and are expanding it.
A note to Svelaz before he responds, I lived in Germany and spoke the language and know their history quite well from the Germanic invasions of the Roman Empire right up to the present. Save you fingers, sir.
To judge the fear (read, “panic”) of the far left over free speech, one needs look no further than the hyperbolic reaction of WOKE governments and corporations to a Libertarian buying an internet site.
The forces of totalitarianism always cloak their actions in virtue and “logic.” There is a reason they use the “protection of victims” as their rationale for killing free speech on social media — who wouldn’t want to protect a victim? Fascism with a friendly face. And few people can see through the facade.
I repeat myself; who’s looking like N*zis now?
What Germany and the rest of the world fail to remember is that Elon not only owns Twitter but that he owns Starlink as well. Kick him off the domestic systems and he’ll can just rain it down on them from space.
You still need a starlink specific receiver in order to get a signal. All it does is allows you to access the internet. You still have to use the land based internet system to share the information.
While it’s unlikely, Germany could ban the sale of starlink receivers. Every system has it’s limits.
There are already tens if not hundreds of thousands of receivers there. You’re not putting that genie back into the bottle without turning the country into exactly what they are claiming to try to prevent.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Svelaz, who yesterday was calling conservatives out for wanting censor, telling the GERMAN GOVERNMENT how to censor free speech. Irony or just plain stupidity?
Actually you can download and upload from Starlink and once you have internet access through your Starlink base station it will go both ways. The whole point of Starlink is not having a land based connection. Hughes does the same thing but at slower speeds and it’s satellite is in geosynchronous orbit and the signal has further to go. Starlink is in low earth orbit. All you need is the receiver delivered to your home, set up yourself and have electricity or a generator if you are way out off the grid. No other internet connection needed.
Reduce Bi-Lateral Trade with Countries that don’t have an Establishment Clause [U.S. 1st Amendment] in Their Governmental Doctrine.
Until Twitter Free Speech is allowed to run wide-open.
We can live with a quarter [1/4] of the Porsche, Mercedes, and Volkswagen’s coming from Germany.
e.g.: https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-germany/
So you’re advocating to force other countries to adhere to our own constitution’s rights because you don’t like how they run their OWN country. Sounds very authoritarian.
Free speech is not a constitutional right. It’s a human right. And although it doesn’t constitute force, mr red herring, we have often sanctioned others for violating human rights.
An occasional reader, am I. Am I correct that Prof Turley has never clearly described the lines he would – or would not – draw to block outright lies, hate speech, racial bias, and threats of violence? I am a free speech advocate, but believe that certain internet speech should be prevented by law that goes beyond First Amendment restictions on government “speech.”.
RDKAY: The problem with the left censorship mania is not the words, but the word monitors. When a leftist can get away with calling Herschel Walker “coonish,” but a conservative gets fired from their university position for using the phrase “lesser Black woman,” you know the standards will not be applied evenly or fairly. In a polarized society, there can be no fair application of censorship laws…and no president or politician would want to put that power in the hands of their opposition.
That leftist was a black professor of African studies insulting another black man. Calling him “coonish” was not racist. For the insult to be racist it would have ot be spoken by someone of a different race than Hershel. That’s why it would be deemed racist. You don’t see black men who call other black men ni@@ers rascist do you?. The term is racist in itself if used by someone who is not black with the intent to insult and denigrate. THAT would be racist. There’s a distinction.
Again your response is ignorant and based on faulty experiences. There are many instances of divisions in the black community and many other communities and ethnicities based on lightness of skin versus darkness of skin and the social hierarchy associated with them. They go by many names but racist basically fits them all. It has occurred in “white” communities and other communities of color. Aryan vs Jew, German vs Slavic, white vs “poor white trash”. Color, religion, social standing, education and accent and numerous others over time define the basic tenets of racism. Basically humans tend to see “other” as a threat. But we can unlearn that with time and exposure and an open mind. Anybody can be racist, your color does not give you an immunity.
Svelaz is a racist and doesn’t even know why, or what the word means.
Why would you block outright lies? Would we all be prohibited from saying, “President Biden is doing a good job,” or, “I like your dress?” Ordinarily, speech is not employed to reveal universal truths but to bond with oor fellow human beings or, as often, to provoke them.
Turley claims to be a “free speech absolutist” which means he supposedly is for the smallest restrictions on speech based on a model of the 1st amendment. Problem is his own blog doesn’t adhere to that model at all. Racist or foul speech is censored despite the fact that they are protected speech by the 1st amendment. An absolutist wouldn’t be making exemptions. It would contradict the whole point of being an absolutist.
You may be an occassional reader, but you are no advocate for free speech. Lies, hate, and bias are in the eye of the censor. An actual “free speech advocate” allows speech they find abhorrent and counter it with other speech, not suppression, which doesn’t actually work anyway (see: history). Also, the first amendment isn’t about “government speech” but about government’s ability to repress speech. Your thinking and understanding, even of your own position, is woefully inadequate.
The world is in the grips of mass formation—a dangerous, collective type of hypnosis—as we bear witness to loneliness, free-floating anxiety, and fear giving way to censorship, loss of privacy, and surrendered freedoms. It is all spurred by a singular, focused crisis narrative that forbids dissident views and relies on destructive groupthink.
https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-psychology-of-totalitarianism
“ I fail to see how arresting a man for a Hitler ringtone is achieving a meaningful level of deterrence, even if you ignore the free speech implications.”
Turley fails to see because he is completely ignorant about why Germany is so strict with speech when it comes to nazis and fascism. Germany knows full well the seriousness of the atrocities committed by Nazis in the past and the deep shame that comes with it. Every German knows this. Turley stupidly forgets just how sensitive they are about anything associated with Nazis and fascism. They LEARNED from their past and they have vowed not to repeat that mistake again. Unlike us they don’t look away from their shameful history and ignore it by whitewashing it or minimizing it’s importance. They fully acknowledge it and make sure every German knows and understands why it is important. The Jews will never let them forget it either. Knowing about and acknowledging it is in essence a part of their national identity.
If they have to implement stricter restrictions on speech because of that it is entirely their right. Turley has no business dictating what they should be doing with their speech or laws. He has no business dictating what other countries should do or not do within their borders because he calls himself a “free speech absolutist”. He censors racist and foul speech on his own blog, speech that a self declared free speech absolutist should be allowing. Turley is a massive hypocrite.
Germans KNOW that anything associated with nazism won’t be tolerated and that includes German citizens, not just the government. That poll he mentions at the end of his column reflects the conservative nature of Germans on expressing their opinion. It’s not a reflection of their freedom of speech. They are more restrained in how they express themselves. Turley is judging Germans by comparing them with Americans attitude about expressing opinions. This is apples and oranges. Not apples to apples. Unlike us they at least discuss it fully in schools. They won’t sweep it under the rug or whitewash and call it wokism like we do with our own shameful parts of our history. Ironically it’s censored or forbidden from discussion in the classroom because it’s uncomfortable. Their history with nazis is also uncomfortable, but they face it head on and learn from it. We run away from it at the slightest hint of discomfort and shame.
They LEARNED from their past and they have vowed not to repeat that mistake again.
Right. Nothing demonstrates better what the Germans have learned about tyranny, than watching them once again walk hypnotized by a regime into state-ordered infringement of their natural rights.
Their rights are not being infringed. Comparing Germanys society as if it were under our own constitution is pretty arrogant. They as a collective society KNOW that certain topics of their history and symbols ARE taboo and they ARE regulated for a very specific reason. This is not just wanton censorship as Turley falsely characterizes in his column.
If Germans want to limit twitter or impose certain rules on how it can operate within THEIR borders they certainly can do that. It’s their sovereign right. Twitter has not right to operate how it wants to outside of the U.S.
They are not “hypnotized” they know exactly what they are doing and every German is fully aware of this. Their constitution is far more explicit in describing their freedoms than ours. Here’s what the German condition says about their rights,
“ 1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.
(3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.”
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html
Note the second paragaraph. Expressing the fact that these rights will find limits in provisions of general laws. This is why they can make it illegal to display nazi symbols and use speech associated with nazis or racist hate speech.
“Note the second paragaraph.”
Translated into plain, Aristotelian language:
There shall be no censorship. Unless we choose to impose censorship.
It is very ominous when a culture is dominated by those who promote such obvious contradictions.
Comparing Germanys society as if it were under our own constitution is pretty arrogant.
Germany just happens to be the subject in this post. It’s not comparing them with our constitution. Ours didn’t create the right of free speech. It exists as a natural right to humankind everywhere. The comparison is in how the expression of that right is secured in Germany relative to the United States.
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.
Note that the first paragraph is effectively canceled by the second. The first paragraph is an example of natural law and the second of positive law. In all cases, positive law is subordinate to natural law. In Germany’s case they have fearfully flipped that on it’s head. That is the product of mass formation.
“ Note that the first paragraph is effectively canceled by the second.”
No, that’s not what it does. The second paragraph points out that the right to free speech is NOT unlimited. It’s not a free for all. Even in our own constitution no right is absolute or unlimited. It’s not a “cancellation” of the first paragraph. Germans are deliberate and very specific on how they do things and their constitution bears that out by specifying a lot more than our own constitution’s ambiguous nature.
Whether it’s “natural law” or “positive law” neither is really unlimited or absolute. Which is why the German government CAN limit free speech just like we CAN limit free speech. Even on this blog free speech CAN and IS limited.
I’m not sure about the quality of this analysis. In revolutions and insurrections, one of the first things that gets suppressed is freedom of speech. Hitler employed this tactic and used it aggressively to suppress anyone who did not support his regime. More recently we experienced here in our own country how the suppression of free speech – and free press – by the FBI in 2016 when it asked social media giant Twitter to suppress the Hunter Biden story – how we wound up with a government that was hardly for the people. The antidote to disinformation and misinformation is more information, not less information. Svelaz’s wishful analysis notwithstanding, had Germany insisted on free speech to begin with, there might not have been a Hitler.
Hitler restricted speech are you supporting one of his basic tenets. And how can arresting such a basic freedom as free speech, produce a more educated public?
Svelaz: Right, so the antidote to past fascism is…current fascism. That’s Ibram X. Kendi’s twisted argument for racial discrimination: end past discrimination with present discrimination. That’s also the rationale for affirmative action. So you’re in good — if not ignorant — company Svelaz.
“. . . why Germany is so strict with speech [i.e., *censors* it] when it comes to nazis and fascism.”
A page right out of the Leftist’s fascist playbook: Criminalize “bad” ideas. In other words, counter opinions with physical force.
The civilized playbook: Counter those ideas with arguments, persuasion, debate. In other words, appeal to reason.
Explaining the censorship laws in Germany just exposes the idocy of trying to ban specifics. The founders, So wise, just barred the govt from interfering with speech, more specifically , ‘the press’. The means of mass communication. Which makes the discovery of Govt agencies telling tech companies exactly what speech to ban, a clear violation of the constitution. Not that the Biden regime would take note. Garland specifically has shown himself to be nothing but a hired political thug, taking orders from the Democrat Party, and ignoring the law and constitution.
I have no doubt that this is what today’s Democrats have in store for America. The public statements of people who are emblematic of the Democratic Party, like Hillary Clinton, show me that they are not concerned with their pro censorship positions being public knowledge. This is because they know full well who really pulls the strings of their organization. The 1st Amendment has always been the sacred jewel in our crown, and now we have an ex First Lady who has no qualms admitting that she is a censor, with no pushback from her brethren. The whole party, and their media, think along these lines. This is why I will never vote for a Democrat.
Great comment.
All we as a people need to do is to fully understand that the “New World Order” that has been talked about for years is being driven by pure totalitarianism. You’ll see governments of the world uniting to control speech, control what you can hear, control what you can see and undermine human rights and they’ll do it under the false pretense of protecting the people from themselves and bad people. Freedom of speech is the first right to go and there will be thunderous applause from ignorant people, the rest of your rights will tumble like dominoes when you no longer have the right to share your opinions publicly. These totalitarian minded people really don’t give a damn about any of your rights when those rights interfere in their goals for total power and control.
Ripping off Rush Limbaugh…sad. Make sure you go vote.
Safeside824 wrote, “Ripping off Rush Limbaugh”
That’s a deflection that directly implies that I’ve essentially plagiarized Rush Limbaugh in some way. Well Safeside824, since I’ve never listened to or read anything Rush Limbaugh has written (not even once) I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I was curious about this specific smear so I just did a quick Google search trying to link Rush Limbaugh to discussions about the “New World Order” and I found nothing in my brief search. Either you effectively support your plagiarizing smear with concrete evidence or be dubbed a brazen liar on top of being a cyberstalking internet troll.
I’m freely giving you a chance on this one Safeside824, it’s the only olive branch you’ll likely see, so this is your chance to argue in good faith about a topic and the topic happens to be your own deflection. Here’s your chance to publicly show a bit of integrity that you’ve lacked in your other comments, the choice is yours.
Choose.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”… Shakespeare. Try rushlimbaugh.com. Seemed eerily similar to your presentation. I’m not going to link it; I won’t subject the Professors denizens to it. Plus, it’s poor form driving hits to a rival site. If you were plagiarizing, I would have used that word (did you ever get permission to quote your “lawyer friend”). Since you are sensitive, next time I’ll use cosplaying or LARPing. Ta Ta for now…off to exercise my democratic responsibility.
Safeside824 wrote, “Try rushlimbaugh.com. Seemed eerily similar to your presentation. I’m not going to link it; I won’t subject the Professors denizens to it.”
Typical response from an internet troll when they’re confronted with having to support their claims; try to shift the responsibility to support their claim because they can’t quote what they’re talking about or link to it because it doesn’t f’ing exist and they’re brazen liars. Sobeit.
I tried.
Fin.
Awww, show us on the doll where Safeside824 hurt you. No imagination, your DARVO’s are tedious. Selective reading comprehension as well. Attacking my desire not to pollute the blog and to not steal advertising dollars away from the Professor…shameful /s. As for supporting claims, I’ll entertain you to provide evidence to support your New World Order thesis. This evidence should be relevant, competent, and credible. The neurons of your bicameral mind are not sufficient. But I expect crickets…
I don’t comment very often but I read once in a while, and I think it’s time that someone other than Steve says something to you about your sophomoric behavior. There’s a lot of back-and-forth commentary that can loosely be described as debate on this blog, but when I ran across your regular personal attacks, they struck me as being profoundly immoral. Others might not be willing to say it, you’re an uncivil a**hole and an internet bully. Is your ugly fat wife always slapping you around and you have to come here to vent your anger to get a hard on and spew your boyhood dreams all over the computer screen?
Have you always been a coward?
Steve Witherspoon, Safeside824, Beelzebub: I strongly advise reading the Civility Rule for this blog befoe you comment further.
David B Benson,
Yup I know all about the Civility Rules, it quite clear that Safeside824 is actively abusing the “we don’t tolerate… bullying” rule but I am really curious, how do you think I have violated the civility rules in this thread, be specific.
Steve Witherspoon, don’t claim that you have.
David B Benson wrote, “Steve Witherspoon, don’t claim that you have.”
What? Did you mean to write “didn’t claim that you have”?
The reason I asked is that you included me in your list of names that should be aware of the Civility Rules.
Yes, “didn’t”.
Thank You, I’ve read them before and just re-read them to see if there were any changes.
Beelzebub
With all due respect and knowing full well that Safeside824 has earned his rebuke, it’s not very helpful when you feed a troll like that.
Still waiting for your evidence of the New World Order hotshot. Can I call you a brazen liar now?
Well, huge fail attacking somebody’s significant other. And coward, nice…no reply possible to either statement without sounding unhinged. Well done. If you don’t like it, scroll past or pile on, makes no difference to me, my skin is thicker than that, besides Stevie can usually use the help. His debating skills are poor and he never provides supporting evidence.
“Awww” now Safeside824 is butthurt, do us all a favor and “show us on the doll where Beelzebub hurt you”. Such a poor whiny victimized little boy. Is that 824 in your name the number of times you’ve tucked your tail between your cowardly legs or is it the number of abusive relationship bruises you have to cover up on a daily basis? Would you like me to see if I can convince child social services to help you get out of your abusive relationship so you can finally try to stand on your own two feet? Maybe the Marines can make a man out of you when you decide to break free of the grip that that roly-poly Tinkerbelle has over you and finally grow a pair, but for now just stick with your virtual fantasies, your warm milk and cookies but do try to increase your makeup skills because what you’re doing now isn’t hiding the abuse bruises.
“Huge fail”, that’s not evidently true because it changed the tone of your reply in a heartbeat. Cowardly bullies are like that, they can’t take the heat when someone else sets the kitchen on fire, they immediately jump to being a victim, like a snowflake in an uncontrollable conflagration.
How is it that you of all people are worried about sounding unhinged? It’s far too late for that, almost everything I’ve read from you sounds unhinged, so you’ve already got that going for you.
From the comments I’ve read, you criticizing Steve’s debating skills is shoulder deep in self-deluding projection. It’s actually you who hasn’t got any debating skills and refuses to provide supporting evidence, all you do is insult and either try to lie your way out of responsibility or try to shift responsibility, you act like a whiny little grade schooler. Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Here’s some adult advice for you to grab onto; put away your childish bullying, take your hand out of your pants, stop being an a**hole and grow the F’up.
Oh my, I think we have awaken a sleeping giant?
Outstanding, that is a quality Drill Sergeant level internet a$$ chewing. Very impressive.
Germans seem genetically unable not to have rules in their lives.
Or better said, they allow governments that regulate everything.
Germans complain, but do nothing.
A TV surveillance van (yes, they have them!) falsely read my German mother as having an unlicensed TV in her house.
They demanded immediate entrance to confirm their suspicions.
And she let them into her house!!!
Germans seem genetically unable not to have rules in their lives.
Or better said, they allow governments that regulate everything.
The United States is unique in the world. Our founding and culture so different than any where else.
This example drove it home to me.
Back in Obama’s early reign of terror, several of the Maga rich got together and tried to recruit others of like bank accounts across the globe, to create a maga charity to address the needs of the poor and needy. When a German publication talked to one of Germany’s richest men, he just said no. When asked why, he was confused and said because that is what the govt does. He could not concieve of using MORE of his money to do what the govt already is doing.
That is a very different culture. That is why the US is the most charitable nation on earth.
They have TV surveillance vans in England too, or at least they did in the late 70’s when I lived in London. They knocked on our door but I left them there, while I fetched the bit of paper proving a current license which we had just obtained. We had recently moved into one of 15 flats in the building. They didn’t ring at the doors of the other flats on the floor (you could hear all the doorbells.) It was very creepy!
Hitler outlawed the listening to radio broadcasts attacking the nazi regime. Stalin and his communists prevented the real world leaking into the Soviet Union (The Rise of Radio FREE Europe).
Now we have the Democrats dictating to others to prevent Free Speech.
What the heck is going on, where are the Sheep Dog’s?
How can it be legal to dictate terms to a private company in another country? As for the UN they haven’t prevented any wars, so they need to leave free speech alone! They are welcome to find a home elsewhere!
The same way Hyundai or (insert your preferred foreign company) sells their products in the United States. You want to play in our markets, you follow our rules. I await your proof the U.N. has failed to prevent any wars.
I await your proof the U.N. has failed to prevent any wars.
Are you anonymous the leftist? That’s his schtick. Thinking its possible to prove a negative
That was the point actually, to remove that defense from the debate. My follow-up is any of the 60-odd concluded and on-going U.N. peacekeeping missions where war was/is being prevented.
on-going U.N. peacekeeping missions where war was/is being prevented.
Got it. Would you be interested in buying my soap, that keeps you safe from space aliens? I’ve been selling it for years, works 100% of the time.
🤣 I don’t know…seems kind of New World Order to me. Is it U.N. endorsed? I wouldn’t want Hillary to profit.
“I await your proof the U.N. has failed to prevent any wars.”
One can’t prove that type of contention, but if one remembers their history the UN had peacekeepers on the Israeli and Sinai border. The UN withdrew its troops when hostilities rose. War broke out. This demonstrates the weakness of the UN.
Why don’t you prove the UN prevented wars, but one can’t prove that contention either.
Foolish request for proof.
You get it. Per the original post, to state categorically the U.N has not prevented any wars is an unprovable, asking for proof merely removes it from the argument.
The UN has been mostly unsuccessful and the successes might be overwhelmed by its failures. The human rights council has traditionally been governed by those with the worst human right records.
If one thinks the UN has done a good job, they are wrong. I don’t think the UN has prevented wars in general, though it has offered a place for discussions that don’t seem to go anywhere. One has to compare UN actions to those actions that would have taken place if it didn’t exist. It’s tough to say.
Should the US be so supportive of the UN. No. A lot of money that promotes terrorism is spent by the UN and now again under Biden by the US. If one wants to prevent war keep America strong with a strong economy. Biden failed. Trump succeeded.
The social media companies started this censorship on their own and now, as times and attitudes change and they begin divesting themselves of the self-censorship, countries will look to replace the censorship function in the interest of preserving and promoting the “truth.” This effort is destined to fail because of the inherent nature of free speech. The antidote to misinformation is not less information but MORE information. People are smart and adapt quickly to their environments. Remember how some people believed the Nigerian Oil scam when it first hit the Internet many years ago? Yes, for a short while there were victims but then all of a sudden everyone on the Internet learned – from the Internet – that these crazy offers and deals were scams and today such claims are the substance of late-night comedy shows. That’s how misinformation and disinformation can be handled on the Internet and, in time, people will come to learn how to recognize truth from fiction. When companies or the state tries to do this, they inevitably define truth by their own standards that may not be ours.
Only in the world of leftist insanity would we have liberal people cheering an effort to get the Germans to institute governmental control of a media platform. I wonder what James Clyburn thinks about this?