Sure sounds to me like a vibrant democracy doing real positive things … 
A screening of the documentary at one of India’s premier universities on Tuesday was disrupted by the authorities, who allegedly cut the power and internet lines to the office of the students’ union which had organised the event. India media reports said stones were thrown at students watching the film.
Names of future Musk children?
You know? And another thing. The fact that this was 20 years ago is irrelevant. We’re still litigating the Armenian genocide (that did or did not happen- I’m not trying to hijack) of 100 years ago.
There’s no moral statute of limitations on some things.
(sorry- just got around to reading the actual article about the documentary)
Back to our regularly scheduled hate fest -
Which, as the article points out, is interesting as Musk had re-banned Kanye after said artist took potshots at Musk. Someone, quick, hack all of the scumbags out there on Twitter and release a bunch of Musk-heads photoshopped on a Trump-esque body, and we can get rid of these various flavors of hate!
…aaand Fuentes has already been banned again
Here’s the Washington Post article: https://wapo.st/3Hvreug
What @am77494 is defending is unconscionable. I hope they’ll back way the fuck off, realizing how authoritarian the suppression is, and quit with the idiotic comparisons to Hollywood’s attempts to monetize the Chinese market. If @am77494 doesn’t back way the fuck off, it tells us nothing about the documentary, and everything about them.
Israeli surveillance forces Journalists and News Organization to self sensor.
Al-Jazeera is owned by Qatar, a rival of Saudi-Arabia and Israel sells surveillance to Saudi-Arabia. It means young Arab politicians and activists are facing a disturbing choice: they will either self-censor and keep quiet about Israel’s many crimes to protect themselves and their loved ones from terrifying hacks and leak attacks,
Also Pegasus was made by Israel and sold to Saudi Arabia, which in turn used it to kill Jamal Khashoggi. Khashoggi was a regular contributor to Al Jazeera, Al Arabia and a host of other news agencies
How does a ‘g’ become an asterisk? It seems like an impossible typo. What does it all mean?
Thank you! The Indian politics hijack was tedious, because the hijacker just wouldn’t stop. And the post that triggered them wasn’t about India, it was about Elon Musk and how hypocritical he was being about “free speech”.
Speaking of Musk, ever looked at his twitter feed? Comedy gold! An hour ago, a “Sir Doge” posted a message about Elmo’s ‘tragic flaw’ and Musk replied “Thank you”.
This is what he was thankful for:
See it in the wild, with the reply.
ps: See Musk’s big graphic of Mars turning into… Earth? Oh, I’ll bet it’s his plan to terraform Mars!
Sorry, forgot to include the footnote. I’ve edited it in.
All of these things—whether Israeli surveillance promotes self-censorship of Arab media, whether the BBC documentary about Modi is accurate, whether the BBC has some kind of “neocolonialist” mindset regarding Indian audiences—are beside the fundamental point that the Indian government’s demand to remove the documentary from Twitter is direct government censorship.
There are lots of other phenomena in the world that also result in the suppression of free speech, but direct government censorship tends to be pretty high on the scale of authoritarian repression. Whatabouting other forms of free-speech suppression is not a valid rebuttal to concerns about government censorship.
This doesn’t seem quite right. The asterisk can’t do double duty. I think you need a second asterisk to direct you to the footnote which tells you what the first asterisk stands for:
doin**
*g
He thanked the Doge guy for saying (with the text above) “I for one think Elon is hilarious!”
…Which is hilarious.
Inadvertently.
Agreed. Its about motive and timing. A parallel was shown between RT’s censorship in the US during Elections.
The BBC needs high moral grounds to question the trial results of a case tried by the supreme court of India. This is the same supreme court that has legalized gay marriage, trans rights and legalized abortion.
So, for BBC to completely ignore the judgement provided by a panel of judges, does need a higher moral ground, IMO.
I believe governance of social media is evolving even in the states and European Union (see cite above provided for EU censoring twitter) as I speak. Please see above where I have provided cites as to how the EU censors Twitter.
It is totally unacceptable for India to have a foreign news agency question the judgement of its Supreme Court that has tried a case consistent with its Constitution. Moreover, this has the potential of fomenting racial riots in an election year.
India censored Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses in India for the same reasons that it would result in riots in India.
Sure - a Quote from Al Jazeera on Modi, written by anonymous authors, with fringe incidents blown out of proportions. Next you will tell me how well the Uighurs are doing in China based on a report from China’s National newspaper.
Modi was tried in the Supreme Court of India per the Constitution of India and found not guilty. A petition to reopen the case was dismissed. But if you want to ignore a panel of Judges, and believe in a conspiracy theory : then sure you may also believe that Obama was not born in the US or disbelief the 911 Investigation report or the Committee’s report on the Insurrection.
Elon reinstated white supremacist Nick Fuentes, who immediately posted a Kanye anti-Semitic tweet and got resuspended.
Seriously, the mind boggles. So if a court determines something, it becomes off limits to question it? Or only for foreign journalists? Or only for foreign journalists of a different race?
You’re creating your own unique free speech moral code here, and it’s one that I’ll wager not one in a hundred would agree with.
And I feel I need to point out that because a court is ruling in favor of liberal social policy, that doesn’t per se make them incorruptible.
@Kimstu : Let me try to present my case cogently to you. See if it makes sense :
India censored Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses in India fearing riots. I think many in Europe have censored Charlie Hebdo to avoid riots too.
Here is an examination on the constitutional aspects of this censorship : BBC documentary on Narendra Modi: How India used ‘emergency powers’ to block clips online
RT wasn’t censored by the government in the US – private distributors dropped it on business grounds (because no one wanted to pay for Russian propaganda any more).
“It would result in riots” is a convenient excuse governments can use any time they want to ban a particular form of speech. Rarely does it actually have anything to do with preventing riots.
In 1924, there was a book similar to Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses published in India. It was called Rangila Rasul :
“Between April and September 1927 there were at least 25 riots spread across Mumbai, Punjab, Bengal, Bihar, Odisha and other regions, leaving a balance of just over a hundred dead (103) and just over a thousand injured (1084)” - Rangila Rasul - Wikipedia