正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Drop Site and Breaking Points’ Ryan Grim spoke with YourFavoriteGuy about TikTok’s new content rules. Under updated hate speech / free speech guidelines spearheaded by former IDF instructor Erica Mandel, creators must explicitly condemn groups like Hamas or PIJ – designated as terrorist by the U.S. State Department –... show more

Drop Site

198,874 subscribers

109,694 次观看 • 10 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

New episode: Pam Bondi says hate speech is not free speech — is she right? FIRE staff (Nico Perrino, Sarah McLaughlin, & Aaron Terr) also take your questions on Charlie Kirk's assassination, President Trump's lawsuit against The New York Times, cancel culture, and more. 00:00 Intro 01:42 Attorney General Pam Bondi's comments that "hate speech" is distinct from "free speech" 02:23 Is it OK for the Department of Justice to target people for "hate speech"? 05:42 How have “hate speech” laws played out overseas? 07:19 President Trump's response to Pam Bondi's “hate speech” remarks 08:50 Are “fighting words,” “incitement,” and “true threats” free speech? 11:22 What about doxxing? 15:15 Is it free speech to celebrate or condone the assassination of Charlie Kirk? 21:52 The termination of k-12 and university faculty in response to their commentary on Kirk's assassination 28:40 Is there a law that might implicate the Discord users who had reason to be aware of malicious intentions the shooter had towards Kirk ahead of the assassination? 30:05 The agency of speakers and those hearing their speech under the incitement standard 31:14 What are the differences between the free speech rights of citizens and non-citizens? 36:20 Does a court filing by President Trump as an individual in the New York Times lawsuit open him up to being deposed about a wide range of behaviors and actions? 37:40 What is the Trump's administration's legal strategy with the New York Times lawsuit? 39:24 What is FIRE doing about private employees being fired for their political commentary? 46:50 What is Charlie Kirk's legacy on free speech? 50:04 What is the difference between the academic protections enjoyed by tenured and non-tenured faculty members? 52:05 Does FIRE trust the Supreme Court to protect free speech? 56:12 How can we prevent capitulation from The New York Times? 59:20 How can ordinary people safely express their opinions on social media and promote civil discourse?

New episode: Pam Bondi says hate speech is not free speech — is she right? FIRE staff (Nico Perrino, Sarah McLaughlin, & Aaron Terr) also take your questions on Charlie Kirk's assassination, President Trump's lawsuit against The New York Times, cancel culture, and more. 00:00 Intro 01:42 Attorney General Pam Bondi's comments that "hate speech" is distinct from "free speech" 02:23 Is it OK for the Department of Justice to target people for "hate speech"? 05:42 How have “hate speech” laws played out overseas? 07:19 President Trump's response to Pam Bondi's “hate speech” remarks 08:50 Are “fighting words,” “incitement,” and “true threats” free speech? 11:22 What about doxxing? 15:15 Is it free speech to celebrate or condone the assassination of Charlie Kirk? 21:52 The termination of k-12 and university faculty in response to their commentary on Kirk's assassination 28:40 Is there a law that might implicate the Discord users who had reason to be aware of malicious intentions the shooter had towards Kirk ahead of the assassination? 30:05 The agency of speakers and those hearing their speech under the incitement standard 31:14 What are the differences between the free speech rights of citizens and non-citizens? 36:20 Does a court filing by President Trump as an individual in the New York Times lawsuit open him up to being deposed about a wide range of behaviors and actions? 37:40 What is the Trump's administration's legal strategy with the New York Times lawsuit? 39:24 What is FIRE doing about private employees being fired for their political commentary? 46:50 What is Charlie Kirk's legacy on free speech? 50:04 What is the difference between the academic protections enjoyed by tenured and non-tenured faculty members? 52:05 Does FIRE trust the Supreme Court to protect free speech? 56:12 How can we prevent capitulation from The New York Times? 59:20 How can ordinary people safely express their opinions on social media and promote civil discourse?

So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

31,314 次观看 • 10 个月前

Even Tucker Carlson is raising awareness that California is ending Free Speech with passed legislation Elon Musk needs to be aware of this “The state of California — has passed a law in the state legislature, both chambers of the state legislature, it awaits a signature from Gavin Newsom, that would ban hate speech on the internet in California. Hate speech. Now, how do they define hate speech? I actually have the definition. I actually wrote it down because I was so shocked by it that this is happening. The state of California, if Gavin Newsom signs this law, and he has until October 13th to do it, he, people will be fined if the censors determine that speech constitutes, and we're quoting now, "Violence, intimidation, or coercion..." What's intimidation or coercion — coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics. Obviously, white Christian men are not covered under that - The state of California under Gavin Newsom is about to, we think, censor the opinions of Americans. Not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they can continue to do what they want to do in secret.” This new law will impose millions and millions of dollars in fines forcing social media companies to censor what California Democrats define as hate speech

Even Tucker Carlson is raising awareness that California is ending Free Speech with passed legislation Elon Musk needs to be aware of this “The state of California — has passed a law in the state legislature, both chambers of the state legislature, it awaits a signature from Gavin Newsom, that would ban hate speech on the internet in California. Hate speech. Now, how do they define hate speech? I actually have the definition. I actually wrote it down because I was so shocked by it that this is happening. The state of California, if Gavin Newsom signs this law, and he has until October 13th to do it, he, people will be fined if the censors determine that speech constitutes, and we're quoting now, "Violence, intimidation, or coercion..." What's intimidation or coercion — coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics. Obviously, white Christian men are not covered under that - The state of California under Gavin Newsom is about to, we think, censor the opinions of Americans. Not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they can continue to do what they want to do in secret.” This new law will impose millions and millions of dollars in fines forcing social media companies to censor what California Democrats define as hate speech

Wall Street Apes

866,924 次观看 • 10 个月前

BREAKING: Trump Treasury Dept Quietly Sanctions Venezuela’s “Cartel del Sol” as Global Terrorists Cartel del Sol, led by Nicolás Maduro, has just been designated as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization by the Treasury Department. This isn’t just a drug cartel. It’s a narco-terrorist regime involved in drug and human trafficking, money laundering, election interference, and support for terror groups like Tren de Aragua and the Sinaloa Cartel. Secretary Marco Rubio didn’t hold back: “Maduro is not the president of Venezuela. He’s the head of Cartel del Sol, a narco-terror organization that’s taken possession of a country.” And now, sources say a scathing report on the 2020 election flagged by General Mike Flynn is about to drop, with ties that reach beyond Venezuela and directly into U.S. election systems. Stay with us. More to come.

BREAKING: Trump Treasury Dept Quietly Sanctions Venezuela’s “Cartel del Sol” as Global Terrorists Cartel del Sol, led by Nicolás Maduro, has just been designated as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization by the Treasury Department. This isn’t just a drug cartel. It’s a narco-terrorist regime involved in drug and human trafficking, money laundering, election interference, and support for terror groups like Tren de Aragua and the Sinaloa Cartel. Secretary Marco Rubio didn’t hold back: “Maduro is not the president of Venezuela. He’s the head of Cartel del Sol, a narco-terror organization that’s taken possession of a country.” And now, sources say a scathing report on the 2020 election flagged by General Mike Flynn is about to drop, with ties that reach beyond Venezuela and directly into U.S. election systems. Stay with us. More to come.

LindellTV

206,272 次观看 • 1 年前

THIS IS WHY EVERYONE NEEDS BACK THE STUDENT PROTESTS AGAINST ISRAEL’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY Everyone should also reject the false smears which falsely paint students & other protestors as “Hamas supporters” or “terrorist supporters.” Anyone using this cheap smear and gaslighting tactic is denying the current holocaust in Gaza & actively providing political cover for a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. In America, by trying to shut free speech & civil rights they are enemies of the U.S. Constitution. That includes Secretary Marco Rubio Department of State. - Howard Zinn (1971) speaking on on civil disobedience:

THIS IS WHY EVERYONE NEEDS BACK THE STUDENT PROTESTS AGAINST ISRAEL’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY Everyone should also reject the false smears which falsely paint students & other protestors as “Hamas supporters” or “terrorist supporters.” Anyone using this cheap smear and gaslighting tactic is denying the current holocaust in Gaza & actively providing political cover for a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. In America, by trying to shut free speech & civil rights they are enemies of the U.S. Constitution. That includes Secretary Marco Rubio Department of State. - Howard Zinn (1971) speaking on on civil disobedience:

Patrick Henningsen

28,204 次观看 • 1 年前

Australia's new “Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill” is perhaps the most egregious attack on free speech I've ever seen. The Australian government is trying to punish all speech that could theoretically "cause fear," even if no actual harm ever occurred by locking you up for 5+ years in prison. They're going after your tweets, blogs, memes, and even quoting scripture as dangerously evil "hate speech," offering protections for Muslims and Jews to speak their mind, but not Catholics or other Christians. PLUS - they want to ban certain groups from Australia carpe blanche, throwing you in prison for 15 YEARS for supporting them. Are Bible Verses & objective truth the next frontier of prison-worthy hate speech in Australia? 👇

Australia's new “Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill” is perhaps the most egregious attack on free speech I've ever seen. The Australian government is trying to punish all speech that could theoretically "cause fear," even if no actual harm ever occurred by locking you up for 5+ years in prison. They're going after your tweets, blogs, memes, and even quoting scripture as dangerously evil "hate speech," offering protections for Muslims and Jews to speak their mind, but not Catholics or other Christians. PLUS - they want to ban certain groups from Australia carpe blanche, throwing you in prison for 15 YEARS for supporting them. Are Bible Verses & objective truth the next frontier of prison-worthy hate speech in Australia? 👇

Isabel Brown

19,927 次观看 • 6 个月前

BREAKING: INTERVIEW WITH X 🚨 Governments around the world are desperately scrambling to cling to power by ordering tech companies to violate your rights and freedoms or face consequences. The government of Canada is violating Section 2(b) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms! They are also threatening to shut down "X" if they don't comply with their outrageous regulations and censorship rules, which do not adhere to freedom of speech or freedom of expression laws. Currently, videos or ads which show images of or mention Donald Trump are NOT allowed to be promoted in Canada. Don't you dare sing or write songs about love, family values, and freedom either, OR ELSE!

BREAKING: INTERVIEW WITH X 🚨 Governments around the world are desperately scrambling to cling to power by ordering tech companies to violate your rights and freedoms or face consequences. The government of Canada is violating Section 2(b) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms! They are also threatening to shut down "X" if they don't comply with their outrageous regulations and censorship rules, which do not adhere to freedom of speech or freedom of expression laws. Currently, videos or ads which show images of or mention Donald Trump are NOT allowed to be promoted in Canada. Don't you dare sing or write songs about love, family values, and freedom either, OR ELSE!

Jayme Knyx

71,303 次观看 • 10 个月前

The Global Sumud Flotilla, sailing toward Gaza with humanitarian aid, has come under sustained drone assaults in the Mediterranean. Drop Site editor Alex Colston, aboard the Sirius-Haifa, spoke to Breaking Points about at least 12 overnight attacks two days ago which hit nine different vessels, including flashbangs and a chemical capsule that injured a crew member. One boat dropped out of the convoy. Colston stresses that Israel has smeared the flotilla as “Hamas,” while offering hollow proposals to offload aid elsewhere–claims contradicted by the ongoing blockade and deadly aid distribution system imposed on Palestinians. Alex Colston | Ryan Grim | Krystal Ball

The Global Sumud Flotilla, sailing toward Gaza with humanitarian aid, has come under sustained drone assaults in the Mediterranean. Drop Site editor Alex Colston, aboard the Sirius-Haifa, spoke to Breaking Points about at least 12 overnight attacks two days ago which hit nine different vessels, including flashbangs and a chemical capsule that injured a crew member. One boat dropped out of the convoy. Colston stresses that Israel has smeared the flotilla as “Hamas,” while offering hollow proposals to offload aid elsewhere–claims contradicted by the ongoing blockade and deadly aid distribution system imposed on Palestinians. Alex Colston | Ryan Grim | Krystal Ball

Drop Site

28,588 次观看 • 10 个月前

$👀 NEWS: The U.S. State Department says it is combing through the social media of all 55 million valid visa holders — “continuously vetting” them for possible revocation based on overstays, criminal activity, or alleged links to “terrorism.” Officials told AP the sweeping reviews go far beyond past checks. Along with social media, they now pull in foreign law enforcement files and U.S. records. Since Trump’s return, more than 6,000 student visas have already been revoked — about 4,000 for infractions like assault, DUIs, or overstays, and 200–300 tied to alleged “terrorism support.” Student applicants are now required to unlock their social media accounts during interviews, where expressions of pro-Palestinian/ anti-genocide speech and campus activism risk being flagged as “terrorism support.”$

👀 NEWS: The U.S. State Department says it is combing through the social media of all 55 million valid visa holders — “continuously vetting” them for possible revocation based on overstays, criminal activity, or alleged links to “terrorism.” Officials told AP the sweeping reviews go far beyond past checks. Along with social media, they now pull in foreign law enforcement files and U.S. records. Since Trump’s return, more than 6,000 student visas have already been revoked — about 4,000 for infractions like assault, DUIs, or overstays, and 200–300 tied to alleged “terrorism support.” Student applicants are now required to unlock their social media accounts during interviews, where expressions of pro-Palestinian/ anti-genocide speech and campus activism risk being flagged as “terrorism support.”

Drop Site

17,335 次观看 • 11 个月前

Documentary on Canadian Woke Authoritarianism: The Hate Network Premieres in Alberta The film features several high-profile scholars and other Canadians who say they were vilified by a government-funded “smear merchant” known as the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. It examines how free speech is suppressed using taxpayer dollars. “Antifa doesn’t care if Charlie Kirk gets shot and killed — don’t be afraid of Antifa or Anti-Hate calling you names, because they wouldn’t care if you die,” Greg Wycliffe said, encouraging people not to fear an entity with ties to Antifa, which has been designated by the U.S. government as a domestic terrorist organization. “This movie, my friends, doesn’t end if you will not rise up — evil never stops on its own; evil must be stopped,” proclaimed Pastor Artur Pawlowski, who was jailed for refusing to close his church during COVID-19. “Censorship grows like a cancer, and we need to root it out and restore freedom in Canada,” stated John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. About 150 people attended the screening in Calgary, Alberta. According to the filmmaker, more screenings will be announced across the country, with the aim of bringing Canadians onto the same page about the state of free speech in Canada and ending federal funding of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. “The state of free speech is pitiful. If Bill C-9 passes, or if they try to resurrect the Online Harms Act, that’s it — we’re finished in terms of free speech in Canada. We cannot let that happen, and part of stopping it is educating middle-of-the-road Canadians who don’t know what’s going on,” Wycliffe said. Follow and support Media Bezirgan for more exclusive coverage of news that matters.

Mocha Bezirgan 🇨🇦

29,420 次观看 • 7 个月前

🇦🇺🇮🇱 "AUSTRALIA ALLOWS TERRORIST SENTIMENTS TO BE PASSED OFF AS FREE SPEECH" The Australian government has allowed pro-Palestinian groups that are widely recognized as radical to hold demonstrations across the nation. Former IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus said that when the law permits ethnic cleansing to be publicly incited, it's not upholding free speech; it's allowing the conditions for extremism to flourish. "I think where Australian authorities failed systemically when it comes to this situation was that they allowed Hamas supporters to take control over the public domain in the main cities of Australia. I personally saw a few Hamas supporters in Melbourne on a Saturday as they were walking through central Melbourne towards the parliament. They were doing so with the approval of the local government and chanting violent slogans against Jews, harassing Jews, and harassing businesses. And when Jewish Australians complained about it, they were told to just go somewhere else. And while you're doing it, take off your kippah or any other Jewish symbol so that you won't incite them to do anything." Jonathan Conricus

🇦🇺🇮🇱 "AUSTRALIA ALLOWS TERRORIST SENTIMENTS TO BE PASSED OFF AS FREE SPEECH" The Australian government has allowed pro-Palestinian groups that are widely recognized as radical to hold demonstrations across the nation. Former IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus said that when the law permits ethnic cleansing to be publicly incited, it's not upholding free speech; it's allowing the conditions for extremism to flourish. "I think where Australian authorities failed systemically when it comes to this situation was that they allowed Hamas supporters to take control over the public domain in the main cities of Australia. I personally saw a few Hamas supporters in Melbourne on a Saturday as they were walking through central Melbourne towards the parliament. They were doing so with the approval of the local government and chanting violent slogans against Jews, harassing Jews, and harassing businesses. And when Jewish Australians complained about it, they were told to just go somewhere else. And while you're doing it, take off your kippah or any other Jewish symbol so that you won't incite them to do anything." Jonathan Conricus

Mario Nawfal

57,860 次观看 • 7 个月前

Jimmy Dore: "One one private jet flight burns more carbon than my car does in my whole lifetime. And Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, they all fly around the world in their private jets. They all have, four, five hundred foot yachts powered by five, six diesel engines, for their leisure. And yet they want us all living in storage containers in fifteen minute ghettos, driving electric scooters, eating the bugs that hit us on the face." "And this is a perfect example. So, Open Minded Approach makes a great, a point. Why are they hypocrites? Why do they do things that they claim are harmful to the climate, such as flying around in private jets? Because they know the truth." "Climate change is not primarily caused by humans but by the sun, the magnetic field, and the ongoing geo... It does seem like it's about control. Does it not seem like that that just like with the Digital Services Act and the censorship and now with climate change, it's about control, right? And that's why they have to hide behind. They're always doing it for your benefit." "They're doing it to save the planet or they're doing it to fight hate speech. And what I say is the people who say they're fighting hate speech are people who just hate speech because it's the speech you hate that needs defending." "That's what's happening right now as we're speaking. Jeff Bezos has a has has having a $100,000,000 wedding, 90 private jets flying to his private wedding. So it couldn't be clear."

Jimmy Dore: "One one private jet flight burns more carbon than my car does in my whole lifetime. And Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, they all fly around the world in their private jets. They all have, four, five hundred foot yachts powered by five, six diesel engines, for their leisure. And yet they want us all living in storage containers in fifteen minute ghettos, driving electric scooters, eating the bugs that hit us on the face." "And this is a perfect example. So, Open Minded Approach makes a great, a point. Why are they hypocrites? Why do they do things that they claim are harmful to the climate, such as flying around in private jets? Because they know the truth." "Climate change is not primarily caused by humans but by the sun, the magnetic field, and the ongoing geo... It does seem like it's about control. Does it not seem like that that just like with the Digital Services Act and the censorship and now with climate change, it's about control, right? And that's why they have to hide behind. They're always doing it for your benefit." "They're doing it to save the planet or they're doing it to fight hate speech. And what I say is the people who say they're fighting hate speech are people who just hate speech because it's the speech you hate that needs defending." "That's what's happening right now as we're speaking. Jeff Bezos has a has has having a $100,000,000 wedding, 90 private jets flying to his private wedding. So it couldn't be clear."

Camus

19,481 次观看 • 1 年前

I’m really having trouble understanding the whitewashing of Charlie Kirk. As this pastor points out 👇 Charlie’s beliefs were fundamentally opposed to the teachings of Christ. 👉 No - of course he should not have been killed for his political beliefs. But neither should people be punished, silenced or “cancelled” if they say they didn’t like him or didn’t agree with his views (of which there is clip after clip after clip.) What about all the people who drove around with “F*ck Trudeau” banners, Nazi flags and nooses? Apparently that was “free speech,” but posting Charlie Kirk’s OWN WORDS is now somehow “hate speech” that people should lose their jobs over? Sheesh. There is a LOT of hypocrisy among conservatives. #MakeItMakeSense

I’m really having trouble understanding the whitewashing of Charlie Kirk. As this pastor points out 👇 Charlie’s beliefs were fundamentally opposed to the teachings of Christ. 👉 No - of course he should not have been killed for his political beliefs. But neither should people be punished, silenced or “cancelled” if they say they didn’t like him or didn’t agree with his views (of which there is clip after clip after clip.) What about all the people who drove around with “F*ck Trudeau” banners, Nazi flags and nooses? Apparently that was “free speech,” but posting Charlie Kirk’s OWN WORDS is now somehow “hate speech” that people should lose their jobs over? Sheesh. There is a LOT of hypocrisy among conservatives. #MakeItMakeSense

guyfelicella🇨🇦🍁

39,694 次观看 • 10 个月前

The decision by ABC, CNN, and NBC not to carry President Trump’s primetime address on election security raises a fundamental question about the role of major broadcast networks in a democracy. This was a nationally announced speech by a sitting, duly elected president on the integrity of U.S. elections. An issue that affects every voter, regardless of party. This is not about liking or disliking Trump, or agreeing or disagreeing with his claims. The presidency is the highest elected office in the country. When a president addresses the nation in a formal, scheduled primetime speech, there is a strong public‑interest argument that news networks should air it live and in full. Citizens can’t evaluate their leaders, or their claims, if they aren’t allowed to hear those leaders directly. Editorial judgment and criticism remain essential. Networks are entirely within their rights to add clear disclaimers before and after the address, fact‑check in real time or immediately afterward, host panels that challenge, contextualize, or rebut the president’s statements. But substituting that for the speech itself, showing only handpicked clips, summaries, or commentary, shifts from informing the public to curating what the public is permitted to see. At that point, viewers are reacting to the networks’ framing, not to the president’s actual words. Even after being censored in the U.S., having its license revoked and facing sanctions, RT International chose to air the address in full. RT has publicly disagreed with the president’s policies and with parts of this speech, but it treated the event as a matter of public record. Our principle is simple: viewers should be able to watch the complete address in context, hear the arguments unedited, and then weigh both the speech and the subsequent criticism for themselves. Rather than having corporate media gatekeepers decide in advance which presidential messages are fit for broadcast.

The decision by ABC, CNN, and NBC not to carry President Trump’s primetime address on election security raises a fundamental question about the role of major broadcast networks in a democracy. This was a nationally announced speech by a sitting, duly elected president on the integrity of U.S. elections. An issue that affects every voter, regardless of party. This is not about liking or disliking Trump, or agreeing or disagreeing with his claims. The presidency is the highest elected office in the country. When a president addresses the nation in a formal, scheduled primetime speech, there is a strong public‑interest argument that news networks should air it live and in full. Citizens can’t evaluate their leaders, or their claims, if they aren’t allowed to hear those leaders directly. Editorial judgment and criticism remain essential. Networks are entirely within their rights to add clear disclaimers before and after the address, fact‑check in real time or immediately afterward, host panels that challenge, contextualize, or rebut the president’s statements. But substituting that for the speech itself, showing only handpicked clips, summaries, or commentary, shifts from informing the public to curating what the public is permitted to see. At that point, viewers are reacting to the networks’ framing, not to the president’s actual words. Even after being censored in the U.S., having its license revoked and facing sanctions, RT International chose to air the address in full. RT has publicly disagreed with the president’s policies and with parts of this speech, but it treated the event as a matter of public record. Our principle is simple: viewers should be able to watch the complete address in context, hear the arguments unedited, and then weigh both the speech and the subsequent criticism for themselves. Rather than having corporate media gatekeepers decide in advance which presidential messages are fit for broadcast.

Ben Swann

1,177,148 次观看 • 22 天前

The "we love Hezbollah and Hamas" crowd (I'm not putting words in their mouths - taking their literal and explicit statements) spent 11 months cheering on Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israel, totally disregarding the implications and real-life consequences for Israelis and most importantly, the people of Lebanon. Now that this situation is escalating massively and risking an all-out war that'll destroy Lebanon and get tens of thousands killed, these vacuous, irritated bunches of noise are predictably acting as if Hezbollah is a blameless "resistance" fending off a randomly aggressive Israel. These "protesters" are acting as if the war is just getting started without any background or instigators, totally ignoring critical history and recent events that the whole world knew would lead to this. They actively promoted violence and attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, because they thought the resistance was "winning." This is what radicalism and emotionally driven "solidarity" looks like. Just like in Gaza, vast swaths of Lebanon's population are against Hezbollah and the deadly consequences for society due to the group's "resistance." Yet Western "activists" think they can out-Lebanese the Lebanese people because they know what's best from 10,000 miles away, without having skin in the game or experiencing consequences for cheering on Iranian-sponsored terrorism. Ironically, the same people who, for years, yelled that "hate speech is violent speech" and not protected free speech are now actually promoting hateful, violent speech in the name of free expression and promoting "solidarity" with Lebanon. Embarrassing, shameful and immensely unhelpful.

The "we love Hezbollah and Hamas" crowd (I'm not putting words in their mouths - taking their literal and explicit statements) spent 11 months cheering on Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israel, totally disregarding the implications and real-life consequences for Israelis and most importantly, the people of Lebanon. Now that this situation is escalating massively and risking an all-out war that'll destroy Lebanon and get tens of thousands killed, these vacuous, irritated bunches of noise are predictably acting as if Hezbollah is a blameless "resistance" fending off a randomly aggressive Israel. These "protesters" are acting as if the war is just getting started without any background or instigators, totally ignoring critical history and recent events that the whole world knew would lead to this. They actively promoted violence and attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, because they thought the resistance was "winning." This is what radicalism and emotionally driven "solidarity" looks like. Just like in Gaza, vast swaths of Lebanon's population are against Hezbollah and the deadly consequences for society due to the group's "resistance." Yet Western "activists" think they can out-Lebanese the Lebanese people because they know what's best from 10,000 miles away, without having skin in the game or experiencing consequences for cheering on Iranian-sponsored terrorism. Ironically, the same people who, for years, yelled that "hate speech is violent speech" and not protected free speech are now actually promoting hateful, violent speech in the name of free expression and promoting "solidarity" with Lebanon. Embarrassing, shameful and immensely unhelpful.

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib

117,968 次观看 • 1 年前

Thank you Kjersti Flaa, a Norwegian reporter and journalist working in Hollywood who has been a major voice covering the #BaldoniLively case on her YouTube channel. I wholly support the #MeToo movement and women experiencing domestic violence. The film #ItEndsWithUs did a great job highlighting the issue. However as a community we must stand against powerful multimillionaires throwing their weight around with PR teams and marketing campaigns seeking to kill online debate by scaring Youtubers, TikTokers and X users who make content they don’t like or agree with. The tweet (below) isn’t about content creators taking sides: it’s about having an open, truthful, and fair conversation without fear of censorship.

Thank you Kjersti Flaa, a Norwegian reporter and journalist working in Hollywood who has been a major voice covering the #BaldoniLively case on her YouTube channel. I wholly support the #MeToo movement and women experiencing domestic violence. The film #ItEndsWithUs did a great job highlighting the issue. However as a community we must stand against powerful multimillionaires throwing their weight around with PR teams and marketing campaigns seeking to kill online debate by scaring Youtubers, TikTokers and X users who make content they don’t like or agree with. The tweet (below) isn’t about content creators taking sides: it’s about having an open, truthful, and fair conversation without fear of censorship.

Omid Djalili

35,564 次观看 • 1 年前

Governments Are Creating A Fake Hate Panic To Censor, Interfere In Elections, And Imprison Their Political Enemies It's alarming what's happening in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, Brazil, and the EU The US and other governments around the world are hyping hate in order to weaponize the government against their political enemies. Ever since the 2019 shooting in New Zealand, governments have been using so-called hate speech, fake news, and misinformation as justifications for censorship. In Ireland, the government is pushing hate speech legislation that would allow police to invade homes and seize phones and computers. In Canada, Justin Trudeau is pushing legislation that would allow the government to sentence individuals to life in prison for things they said. And it was recently revealed that the Biden White House worked with one of the leading groups that hype hate, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, to demand Facebook and other social media platforms to remove content and people they don't like. The Biden administration also endorsed the "Christchurch Call to Action to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online," which governments created in 2019 to justify censorship. This focus on so-called hatred, harmful content, and extremist content is extremely dangerous. What one person thinks is extreme, another person may view as common sense. For the government to decide what is extreme is a way of labeling someone as a potential terrorist threat. We saw this clearly with the Trudeau government's suppression of the Canadian trucker protests in Ottawa, in which people's bank accounts were frozen simply for supporting the anti-vaccine mandate. The same could happen in the United States. There is no reliable connection between people's beliefs and violence. Attempting to stop violence by censoring speech is totalitarian and Orwellian. It effectively criminalizes speech and creates a whole new category of pre-crime, like that depicted in the dystopian film, "Minority Report." So why are governments doing this?

Governments Are Creating A Fake Hate Panic To Censor, Interfere In Elections, And Imprison Their Political Enemies It's alarming what's happening in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, Brazil, and the EU The US and other governments around the world are hyping hate in order to weaponize the government against their political enemies. Ever since the 2019 shooting in New Zealand, governments have been using so-called hate speech, fake news, and misinformation as justifications for censorship. In Ireland, the government is pushing hate speech legislation that would allow police to invade homes and seize phones and computers. In Canada, Justin Trudeau is pushing legislation that would allow the government to sentence individuals to life in prison for things they said. And it was recently revealed that the Biden White House worked with one of the leading groups that hype hate, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, to demand Facebook and other social media platforms to remove content and people they don't like. The Biden administration also endorsed the "Christchurch Call to Action to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online," which governments created in 2019 to justify censorship. This focus on so-called hatred, harmful content, and extremist content is extremely dangerous. What one person thinks is extreme, another person may view as common sense. For the government to decide what is extreme is a way of labeling someone as a potential terrorist threat. We saw this clearly with the Trudeau government's suppression of the Canadian trucker protests in Ottawa, in which people's bank accounts were frozen simply for supporting the anti-vaccine mandate. The same could happen in the United States. There is no reliable connection between people's beliefs and violence. Attempting to stop violence by censoring speech is totalitarian and Orwellian. It effectively criminalizes speech and creates a whole new category of pre-crime, like that depicted in the dystopian film, "Minority Report." So why are governments doing this?

Michael Shellenberger

826,580 次观看 • 2 年前

🚨 LIZ TRUSS WAS RIGHT — BRITAIN IS PUNISHING TRUTH Liz Truss is no longer speaking as Prime Minister — she is speaking as a witness. A witness to a Britain where speech is policed, where newspeak is enforced, and where dissent now carries real consequences. When citizens are told they must repeat slogans — “people get pregnant,” “diversity is our strength,” “Islam is a religion of peace” — or risk losing their jobs, their reputations, or their freedom, that is not tolerance. That is coercion. For years, Truss warned that free speech was being hollowed out quietly — not by tyrants, but by bureaucrats, activists, and a culture of fear. Now people are being arrested for words written online. Police are deployed not to stop crime, but to enforce ideology. Victims are redefined. Accusers are hidden. And citizens are told this is “progress.” Britain was not built on silence. It was built on liberty, open debate, and the right to disagree without fear. Liz Truss is right to say the country has sleepwalked into this crisis. And she is right about something else too: If this erosion continues, Britain will not wake up free. It will wake up controlled. This is the moment to choose — speech or submission. Liz Truss

🚨 LIZ TRUSS WAS RIGHT — BRITAIN IS PUNISHING TRUTH Liz Truss is no longer speaking as Prime Minister — she is speaking as a witness. A witness to a Britain where speech is policed, where newspeak is enforced, and where dissent now carries real consequences. When citizens are told they must repeat slogans — “people get pregnant,” “diversity is our strength,” “Islam is a religion of peace” — or risk losing their jobs, their reputations, or their freedom, that is not tolerance. That is coercion. For years, Truss warned that free speech was being hollowed out quietly — not by tyrants, but by bureaucrats, activists, and a culture of fear. Now people are being arrested for words written online. Police are deployed not to stop crime, but to enforce ideology. Victims are redefined. Accusers are hidden. And citizens are told this is “progress.” Britain was not built on silence. It was built on liberty, open debate, and the right to disagree without fear. Liz Truss is right to say the country has sleepwalked into this crisis. And she is right about something else too: If this erosion continues, Britain will not wake up free. It will wake up controlled. This is the moment to choose — speech or submission. Liz Truss

Jim Ferguson

31,632 次观看 • 8 个月前