We have been discussing the alarming shift in higher education in favor of censorship and speech regulations. These voices have been amplified on media platforms like MSNBC which has championed efforts to censor people and groups on social media and other forums. The most recent example is the interview of University of Michigan Law Professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade by Rachel Maddow. In the interview, McQuade explains how the First Amendment is the “Achilles Heel” of the United States and why the public needs to embrace greater limitations on free speech.
Professor McQuade has published a book entitled Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America. Despite my strong disagreements with her views on free speech, I am sure that it will be an important contribution to this debate. My forthcoming book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in the Age of Rage, takes a diametrically opposed view on the meaning and history of free speech in America.
In the interview, McQuade recognizes the importance of free speech while emphasizing its dangers.
“Actually, Rachel, I think we’re more susceptible to it than other countries, and that’s because some of our greatest strengths can also be our Achilles Heel. So, for example, our deep commitment to free speech in our First Amendment. It is a cherished right. It’s an important right in democracy, and nobody wants to get rid of it, but it makes us vulnerable to claims [that] anything we want to do related to speech is censorship.”
Well, the question is what “we want to do related to speech.” If it involves blacklisting, throttling, deplatforming, and bans, it most certainly does raise questions of censorship. Free speech is now portrayed as an existential threat to the country as opposed to the very thing that defines us as a free people.
McQuade captures the theoretical divide over free speech, though she is clearly voicing a view that is increasingly popular among law professors. She advances views of free speech that I have discussed in prior academic writings and the new book as “functionalist.” These views allow for greater trade offs between free speech and overriding social or political priorities.
For some of us, free speech is a human right. In that sense, I am undeniably a free speech dinosaur who believes that the solution for bad speech is better speech. Rather than continue down the slippery slope of censorship under the guise of disinformation, we can allow citizens to reach their own conclusions in an open and robust debate.
The alternative is often to use transparently biased judgments over what is “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation” (MDM). The government has used this rationale to coordinate censorship in what it has called the “MDM space.”
For example, within DHS, Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” I testified earlier on this effort.
McQuade’s book will certainly add to the scholarship in this area. However, her view is painfully familiar for many of us in academia.
The inevitable result of the rise of DEI incompetents into positions of power: they seek to silence their critics through government censorship by claiming opposing views are ““misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation”. Their goal is to silence the opposition so their incompetence can not be exposed.
Don’t believe it? Think back on the COVID management and the price that was paid by allowing incompetents to censor critics. You and your kids paid dearly.
If someone plagiarizes parts of his PhD dissertation, in a worthless concentration, has a trail of meaningless jobs, is given a prestigious job at a antiracist, Nazi university, and is later exposed for plagiarizing by using even sections of Wikipedia, is he covered under free speech, misinformation or simply a disgrace?
Asking for an anti-racist racist
“Columbia University Hospital DEI Chief Is Serial Plagiarist, Complaint Alleges
Alade McKen plagiarized pages of material from Wikipedia”
https://freebeacon.com/campus/columbia-university-hospital-dei-chief-is-serial-plagiarist-complaint-alleges/
It seems to me that the free speech issue is just a microcosm of where society is headed. The libs want to wipe our butts for us on everything and we keep putting in policies that allow then access to the toilet paper. As an example, take Obamacare, instead of telling our youth that their healthcare is their responsibility, and showing them some tough love by telling those without it, well, you should have tried harder, we install a system that steals property from the responsible and give to the irresponsible. Free speech is similar in that instead of telling the populous, hey, you need to be responsible for what you listen too and do your own research, we will do it for you. I just wonder how long it takes before the roll of toilet paper runs out.
Just wanted to say I saw you speaking on this on FOX/YouTube and you referenced your blog – for which I’m glad. I was heartened to see you speaking in a civil tone and stipulating that those who see things differently than you often have a valid viewpoint, with which you disagree strongly. If Maddow and the other “far left” pundits adopted that reasonable approach perhaps there would be actual public debate of a much higher quality rather than, as you put it, a bunch of echo chambers.
The left does not want debate – they will lose and they know it.
That is why they argue from emotion and why they seek to silence those that oppose them.
As RFK Jr has stated, never in human history have the good guys pushed censorship
I watched an in-depth interview with Michael Benz recently, which put all of these pieces together. He is the founder of the Foundation for Freedom Online, and he draws from decades of experience in national security services. You can tell by listening to him that he has in-depth knowledge of what’s going on.
Anyways, the bottom line is that this push for censorship in the supposed protection of democracy is not coming from talking heads on TV. Those people are essentially reading from a script written by their masters. The masters are the national security agencies — the deep state that some people deny exists. The security agencies used to be all about protecting the homeland from foreign threats. Not anymore. With Brexit, Duterte’s election in the Philippines, and later Trump’s election, they changed focus in two ways.
First, they now see populism as the biggest threat to America and the world order, as it led to those results — and eventually other similar ones such as Bolsonaro’s election in Brazil. Second, and relatedly, they no longer see protecting democracy as being defined by protecting the people’s right to choose their leaders. Instead, they have shifted to protecting “democratic institutions” such as the legacy press and the administrative state.
Once you realize that these two factors have shifted in this way, it all makes sense . . . like when we shifted from thinking of the earth as the center of the solar system to the sun as center. The movements of the planets suddenly made a lot more sense.
You may believe the above is hogwash, and that’s your right. But if so, I would challenge you to listen with an open mind to any recent in-depth interview of Michael Benz explaining these developments, and then make up your mind accordingly.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/michael-benz-rising-voice-conservative-criticism-online-censorship-rcna119213
As long as you understand that you are following an anti-Semite, then be my guest.
In interviews with white nationalists, Frame Game (his pseudonym) blamed Jews for “controlling the media” and for the decline of the white race. “If you were to remove the Jewish influence on the West,” he said in one video, “white people would not face the threat of white genocide that they currently do.”
Like I said, listen to what he actually says and then make up your mind. The content of his interviews, as I’ve seen them, do not include any antisemitism, and any criticism of the legacy media is secondary to the criticism of the security agencies’ shift of focus. As I noted, he does not paint the media as the prime driver of the push for censorship. If he’s anti-Semitic, then shame on him for that, but it doesn’t disprove the factual content of what he’s saying . . . which is what I’m more concerned about.
yawn. If he hasnt attended Berkeley, Harvard, Penn, MIT, George Washington U, wear today’s Nazis Democrats wear their Swastikas proudly, he is just a faker….kinda like ewe! 🐑
Anonymous: now Democrats are Nazis? The only political party PROVEN to have ties with actual Nazis is the ReTrumplicans–to wit: the “Camp Auschwicz” t-shirts worn by Trump gullibles to the insurrection, and the Nazis who openly support Trump. How about the losers who carried torches at Charlottesville, whom Trump described as “fine people” after they murdered Heather Heyer? Trump loves to throw around words he knows that the gullibles don’t understand but know are bad—like, “fascists” “communists”, “Nazis” to describe those who oppose him. Trump is, in fact, beholden to a Communist dictator–Putin–who helped him cheat his way into office, and who interfered in our elections in 2016 and 2020.
As long as you understand that you are following an anti-Semite, then be my guest.
Ad hominem
Will not engage the topic
How is that ad hominem?
OldMan says to “I follow X.”
Anonymous: X is an Anti-Semite. Here is clear proof, includes link. Just so you know, you are following an Anti-Semite.
Nothing about that is an attack on the character of OldMan. Replace the whole exchange with “Packers fan” instead of Anti-Semite. Would you consider that ad hominem too?
Anon – a couple things. I believe Iowan2 meant you were directing an ad hominem to Benz, not me.
Second, I never said “I follow Benz.” I’m not sure what you mean by “follow” since you used that in your initial response to me as well. But I don’t consider him my leader. I have watched some of his interviews and find him to be unusually well informed and cogent.
ATS assumes that everyone he disagrees with is enthrall to someone on the right.
Everyone he disagrees with it a deplorable, mindless trumpster.
One last thing: I read the NBC news article you linked to. I did not find it to contain “clear proof” that Bens is, in fact, Frame Game. The writer did put forth some circumstantial evidence to that effect, but it did not rise to the level of clear proof.
And here is Benz’s own reply to the NBC piece Anon linked to:
https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1710479185028726943?s=20
So you follow ad hominem with a straw man ?
OMFK refered to some of Benz’s rewriting on the role of the security state in censorship.
Your response essentially was – “William Shockley is a racist, don’t use transistors!”
Insult as a means of distracting from the debate is ad hominem.
Racism is bad
X is a racist
Therefore everything X says is a lie
is a logical fallacy, it is a non-sequitur.
Ad hominem litterall means Argument to the person.
Usually it means argument by insult.
But it always means shifting the topic from the issue to the person.
Which is precisely what you did.
OMFK’s argument – and the remarks by Benz that he linked to are that the National security state is a driving factor in censorship.
What does the possibility that Benz is an anti-semite have to do with that ?
If you had replied “Benz is of medium height” – that would be ad hominem – a shift of the argument from the issue to the person.
It is normal for ad hominem to be insult – ad homenem is usually an appeal to emotion. An attempt to spray some emotionally charged remark that will distract from the issue
It is not a requirement.
Next your analogy is poor.
Replacing antisemite with packers fan, would not change the fact your argument is ad hominem.
it is still a shift fromt he issue to an attribute of the person.
And worse one that has no relevance.
I now seriously doubt Benz is anti-Semitic. He describes himself as a proud Jew and has the receipts (see link above).
Now wait a minute. I can tolerate a lot but equating a Packers fan with an anti-Semite is over the top.
You never engaged in the statement of Benz.
Just called him names.
“When reached for comment about Benz and his connections to Frame Game, Shellenberger said in an email: ‘Mike Benz has done some of the best research of anyone exposing the Censorship Industrial Complex, and I was glad to draw from it for our own reporting about the ways in which the US government and its proxies coerce and inspire censorship by social media companies of disfavored views and voices. I have no knowledge of Benz’s other views and am skeptical they would change my view of his research into the Censorship Industrial Complex.’”
Yes, yes, we know, it is only not anti-semetic when Left Wing nuts attack rape and murder jews.
Regardless, I am tired of racists ranting about the alleged racism of their political enemies.
Clean your own house before you b—h about mine or anyone else’s.
Sunshine, go away today
I don’t feel much like dancing
Some man’s gone, he’s tried to run my life
He don’t know what he’s asking
When he tells me I better get in line
I can’t hear what he’s saying
When I grow up, I’m gonna make it mine
These ain’t dues I been paying
Well, how much does it cost?
I’ll buy it
The time is all we’ve lost
I’ll try it
And he can’t even run his own life
I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine, sunshine
William Shockley invented the Transistor, should we toss out all modern electronics because Shockley was a racist ?
That he may have “blamed Jews for ‘controlling the media'” and said, “If you were to remove the Jewish influence on the West, white people would not face the threat of white genocide that they currently do”, does not equate him as someone who hates and would persecute Jews. In fact, as a Jew himself, Benz is as far from an anti-Semite as I expect you might be. It could be the NBC article you offered is a prime example of what Benz warns us about.
https://www.rawstory.com/michael-benz/
Please explain to me again why anyone should trust an anonymous poster ?
Why anyone should trust someone on the left ?
Why anyone should trust those who have been wrong about pretty much everything ?
Why one should trust those who constantly cite things inaccurately or out of context ?
The left has gotten SO BAD, you are not worth fact checking.
“As long as you understand that you are following an anti-Semite, then be my guest.”
On this blog, we have to put up with this type of sh!te. Benz is not an anti-Semite, but Anonymous proved Benz’s points about how the press and writers like Brandy Zadrozny can alter the environment we all swim in. It also shows how stupid Anonymous is and why he should be laughed off the blog.
It is abundantly clear Anonymous didn’t understand the totality of Zadrozny’s piece, which was meant to convince stupid people that what Benz said wasn’t worthwhile, which is wrong no matter who Benz is. Anonymous is a vile person(s) ( I include the s because we have a number of anonymous persons just as vile and just as stupid). Anonymous lacks critical thinking skills and knowledge and is lazy, too lazy to search for truth.
I thank Anonymous for demonstrating how awful the left is, and yes, I knew that before I read Benz’s Tweet. I also didn’t need to read the Tweet to know Benz is not an anti-Semite, but I will quote a bit from it.
—
The account in question was a project by Jews to get people who hated Jews to stop hating Jews. It was a deradicalization project, and it produced deradicalization material. It made contact with groups in the early primordial soup of the MAGA movement in 2016 and sought to move people from a place of hate and division closer to a place of love and unity.
And it was successful. The biggest fans of this account, which was deleted around six years ago and to which I only contributed in a very limited manner, were fellow Jews who saw how effective it was at building a bridge and winning over hearts of people who held anti-Semitic beliefs, and non-Jews who would write in to say, “I’m so glad I found this account, I used to have a lot of hate and heaviness in my heart towards Jewish people, but since I discovered you, I don’t feel that anymore.”
There are many disparate groups together in a disparate alliance to force their views and control of the world upon us.
They are losing the fight.
That does not mean the battle is not bloody.
When demon 😈 💩 meet, the founding fathers weep.
Michael Benz was the State Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Communications and Information Policy during the Trump Administration, and he continues to track western governments’ progress advancing censorship as a primary means for controlling the information they want their populations to have and not have. In the article and video below, he explains how our government’s censorship first began and how it has changed. A change that is not for the better when it comes to who and what will govern us. The video is 24 minutes, but a transcript is provided for anyone who prefers it. Either way it is thought-provoking and worthwhile for those of us concerned about where we may be headed.
https://brownstone.org/articles/when-military-rule-supplants-democracy/
CORRECTED: The irony is speaking about free speech on Rachel Maddow’s show.
Ron – we’re apparently on the same wavelength, haha. I was typing in the above when you posted your comment.
Yours,
Uncle Henry
The irony is speaking about free on Rachel Maddow’s show.
Disinformation is very much a threat to our country and freedoms. Consent of the governed is at the core of freedom, which in the US is implemented by voting for our preferred (and eligible) candidates and parties. Disinformation prevents the people from understanding what that issues affecting our country are and knowing what the actual positions on polices these candidates have. Thus disinformation can negate consent of the governed and thus our core freedoms.
Those fighting back on disinformation and lies are correct. Those in favor of disinformation are working against our country, and are commonly the same people who are spreading those lies. Turley is a prime example of that.
If anyone is a prime example of a spreader of disinformation, it is you.
You do it nearly everyday here on the good professor’s blog.
Which we are all thankful for. It shows the degree of TDS that has infected you.
Have you watched this by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkission: https://fullmeasure.news/newest-videos/media-miss
Or this one: https://fullmeasure.news/newest-videos/biden-investigation-part-1
This is the current Democratic Party speaking. Censorship is their highest priority.
Disinformation and misinformation (formerly referred to as lying and bullsh-t) have always been a problem, yet somehow we’ve been able to muddle on for over 200 years. Why is that?
There are many examples in US history of disinformation driving policy such as the Spanish-American War.
And government censorship would have made things better how?
I never mentioned government censorship.
Let’s also point out the Texas and Florida want to REQUIRE social medial sites to host disinformation.
and voter ID
The horror!
Leave the kids alone, sicko.
Or Covid.
And those examples undermine your point.
How do we know what is true ?
We can only distinguish what is true from what is false when we are free to hear and evaluate all positions.
Sammy, how do you feel about one of the biggest spreaders of misinformation for some three years, Rachel Maddow?
Let’s say, for a minute, that you are right. First, how do you know that the power to censor isn’t going to be abused? And how do you know that they are even correct? I take two examples–Hunter’s laptop and the origin of COVID-19. The government suppressed actual facts (i.e., that Hunter’s laptop is real, and by the way, that affected the election) and suppressed the likeliest explanation of COVID’s origins, which by the by , serves the interests of the Communist Chinese.
And the power to censor, is the power to imprison. Let’s say someone had been imprisoned for the laptop stuff. The government would then be invested in maintaining the lie. Etc. What should happen to people who do that?
Sammy says:
March 1, 2024 at 10:44 AM
Disinformation is very much a threat to our country and freedoms.
I know its like asking a chicken to define nuclear fission.
But
Present a solution.
+1
ROFL
For the government and media disinformation=views that are contrary to ours. We have seen enough “disinformation” that has been proven to be true (i.e. Hunter’s laptop) and info such as anything Fauci says that I am not willing to allow anyone to filter/censor anything I read or hear. I’ll make my own decision as to what I believe and what I don’t
How is it that you know what disinformation is ?
The FACT is that disinformation is NOT a consequential threat.
So long as speech is free we will have all the information we need to separate truth from falsehood.
The moment speech is no longer free – it becomes increasing impossible to tell what is true and what is not.
We can not know the truth in a world where all we ever hear is what those we agree with call the truth.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Professor Turley, why would you consider yourself a dinosaur as it pertains to free speech? Free speech is main stream. Both sides wanted, however, a small percentage want to limit it, or do away with it all together. Being a constitutional list and requiring our government to follow the text of our constitution is not a thing of the past. What we need to remember it is those like this professor, who believes in limiting or doing away with free speech that are the dinosaurs. Our nation fought against these same tyrants to become free. One look at the Decoration of Independence makes it painfully obvious.
Those in government who espouse this same stance of limiting or curtailing, free-speech, are the insurrectionist. The United States is being attacked by our own government on a constant basis. Be at free-speech, or the invasion happening at our borders. The insurrection is so bad that you are compelled to write multiple articles per day, trying to keep Americans aware, and informed of the constant onslaught.
It takes a lot of hutzpah for someone like Rachel Maddow to be talking about free speech and disinformation. The queen of hysteria over Russiagate has suddenly developed amnesia over her years of lying and fudging!
To Rachel Maddow, It’s just a Job. Be happy to have one.
Hear, hear!
The irony is that governments are the chief spreaders of disinformation. Every word that comes out of the mouths of Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell, Graham and the rest of the “establishment” is a lie. Russiagate is a lie, the Hunter cover-up is a lie, the reporting on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza are lies. From the NYTimes to FOX — all lies. So who are they going to accuse of “disinformation”? Who are they going to arrest, silence, censor? You can bet the farm that it won’t be one of them.
It’s bigger than that. Party members tend to believe each others lies, including members of the ‘other’ Party, when it advances a common agenda – like not wanting to support a citizenry that didn’t elect one of “them”.
2 + 2 = 4, so there!
Let a = b
multiply both sides by a
a x a = a x b
a^2 – ab
subtract both sides by b^2
a^2 – b^2 = ab – b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
remove (a-b) from both sides leaves you with
a+b = b
Since a = b substitute a with b
b+b = b
or
2 = 1
Jim22 — Tch. You divided by 0 = (a-b)
The problem with “disinformation “ is that the definition is fluid and changes depending on who is using the word. A recent revelation regarding US involvement in Ukraine before the Russian invasion is a case in point. For the last two years we have been told the invasion was “unprovoked” when in fact, NATO and the US had been using it as an intelligence collection site and training Ukrainian units that were conducting assassinations inside Russia. While the former is “fair game” the later is an act of war. Are all those thousands of news stories that called the invasion as “unprovoked” going to be censored? Hardly. The problem has become so obvious that they have now created a new term, Malinformation, information that is 100% true but inconvenient for the person labeling it.
Just wondering, why was National Socialist and Communist censorship regarded as bad and western, leftist censorship is now regarded as good and necessary?
Don’t expect a s@@tlib to actually answer they’ll just call me some kind of slur.
Of course s@@tlibs advocate censorship because they cannot refute or debate you. No one is trying to censor the Flat Earth Society.
antonio
We have been discussing the alarming shift in higher education in favor of censorship and speech regulations.
Not so! The Left will pay good money in court to defend Nazis. This so that they can harass Jews, hurl antisemitic insults, enable brown shirts to corral them and throw projectiles at them. They and Hitler would be proud of Univ of California at Berkeley defense of Nazis at their
campuscamp pogroms.‘It’s unspeakable’: UC Berkeley Jewish leaders decry university’s response to antisemitic mob
University administrators avoided mentioning ‘antisemitism’ in their official statements on the incident
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/03/university-of-california-berkeley-antisemitism-jewish-students/
Alas almost 7 years later, the Left love to hector Americans about white supremacists marching in Charlottesville near the Univ of Virginia as antisemites. Candidate Joe Biden and his brown shirts in the MSM called the white supremacists Nazis and anyone who defended them were branded as such.
It seems Nazism today at Univ of California Berkeley is just plain dandy and with an endowment ~ $7 Billion, Berkeley plays to win:
UC Berkeley cites First Amendment in bid to end antisemitism lawsuit
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/uc-berkeley-cites-first-amendment-bid-end-antisemitism-lawsuit-2024-02-06/
Adolf Hitler would be thrilled. One can hear the chants from MSNBC and Berkeley admins already: Sieg Heil. Rachel Maddow does have a striking similarity both in appearance and temperament to Adolf Hitler.
And we wondered as kids when studying World War II in high school how the Axis powers could gain such a following.
This rant of your is nonsensical.
The Reuters article you link to clarifies that “Campus and law school leaders publicly denounced those policies and expressed support for Jewish students, according to the motion to dismiss, but disciplinary action would be unconstitutional.”
As a public institution, the university must balance students’ right to an education with “the foundational constitutional principle that government cannot punish speech due to its viewpoint.”
Bad speech should not be censored but countered with good speech.
my wife graduated from Berkeley and she rarely tells anyone. She was mortified when Berkeley started to enforce expulsion of students from the university for “hate speech” against those who uttered the N word, then LGBTQIA, then pronouns, then “trans-phobes”, and now apparently protecting antisemites aka Nazis. May the lawsuit filed against Berkeley cost them as much or more than Oberlin College $37 Million fine for false racial allegations
Left or right, when you can’t intelectually defend your position from legitimate challenges, the easiest, laziest method is to shut down dissent
A guest on Fox News touted a new book compiled by years of research done by hundreds of college conservatives and touted the following:
“We lay out the fourfold interconnected threat that minority urban voters pose to the country. First of all, they are the most racist, sexist, anti-white, anti-cis demographic in the country. Second, they’re the most conspiracist group: mainstream media supporters and subscribers, election denialism, obedient followers Covid policies and scientific sycophancy, Obama worship. Third: anti-Republican sentiments. They don’t believe in an independent press, free speech, they’re most likely to say the president should be able to act censor. . . . they’re also the most strongly black/Trans nationalist and Athiest-nationalist. And fourth: they’re most likely to excuse or justify violence as an acceptable alternative to peaceful public discourse.”
OH WAIT! No, that isn’t true. What ACTUALLY happened was this:
“MSNBC interviewing the authors of a new book called White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy this week. Host Mika Brzezinski gamely begins: “Tom, I’ll start with you. Why are white rural voters a threat to democracy?”
We lay out the fourfold interconnected threat that white rural voters pose to the country. First of all, they are the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay demographic in the country. Second, they’re the most conspiracist group: QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, Covid denialism and scientific skepticism, Obama birtherism. Third: anti-democratic sentiments. They don’t believe in an independent press, free speech, they’re most likely to say the president should be able to act unilaterally. . . . they’re also the most strongly white nationalist and white Christian nationalist. And fourth: they’re most likely to excuse or justify violence as an acceptable alternative to peaceful public discourse.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/tgif-bad-things-happened?r=1yhvat&utm_medium=ios
Such a good description of the democrats and progressives that we have today.
Granny62,
The author of that book just took a bunch of stereotypes and made up the rest.
We dont believe is all that crap the author wrote.
𝐄𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲
The editor-in-chief of the renowned Russian independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta was detained in Moscow on Thursday and later fined after being accused of discrediting Russia’s armed forces, the newspaper said.
The Associated Press ~ February 29, 2024
https://apnews.com/article/russia-media-crackdown-newspaper-muratov-dfb9564182bb846990816a192cd730b1