No, you fucking tyrant-supporting piece of shit, no European government cut the power to student dorms and showed up with tear gas in order to keep anyone from looking at Charlie Hebdo cartoons. That’s not the fuck how a democracy works, and it’s bootlickers like you that grease the slide to fascism.
Christ almighty, would you fuck off with your violence-enabling bullshit?
Yes of course sir! Christ Almighty indeed. Please do not launch a crusade now. I will stop the discussion now.
Thank you
Folks? Get your own thread please, you’re blowing up my phone and I only want it to blow up with Elon suffering.
To wit:
Really? How much Twitter stock, considering the latest trends, do you think you’ll have to sell to get 3 billion… 
Granted though, this was originally reported in the WSJ and Elon denied it via tweet.
You’re literally defending someone who’s using violence to shut down discussion, you hypocritical shitbird. In your tiny brain it may have seemed clever to take my expression of disgusted contempt and turn it into an implied threat–but outside of your idiot skull, the rest of the world is rolling its eyes at the flaccidity of your wit.
There’s no “discussion” for you to stop, but if you’re going to quit with the support for protofascists (I think Modi’s still in the “proto” phase), all the better.
Sit down.
He denies it, as you said, but I expect it’s real.
Also, I didn’t realize he’d cut off the Tweetbot’s API:
Tweetbot. April 2011 - January 2023 (tapbots.com)
I know users who loved it, RIP.
You don’t like Al Jazeera? Frankly I have more trust in them than I do in CNN which is generally more interested in the antics of Kanye West and the Kardashians than in real news. But that’s beside the point. Maybe you missed the link that @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness provided earlier, which is to a Washington Post article that makes pretty much all the same points as the one from Al Jazeera. Not anonymous – it’s written by three respected high-profile journalists.
You know, if everyone is telling you that you’re an uninformed moron who’s taken an offensively misguided position on this issue, and giving you lots of evidence to back that up, maybe it’s time to stop embarrassing yourself and reconsider your position.
Got a cite for claims of government censorship of Charlie Hebdo, i.e., governmental directives making its dissemination illegal, in Europe? I’m well aware that various non-governmental forms of censorship of Islamophobic content have been practiced in Europe as well as elsewhere, but that’s not exactly the same thing.
Furthermore, the chief point that you seem to be missing in this discussion has nothing to do with whether you can state a persuasive case for the exercise of Indian governmental censorship of the BBC’s documentary on Modi in this particular instance. The point is that Twitter’s acquiescence in that censorship is a contradiction of the commitment to “free-speech absolutism” that Musk bragged about implementing at Twitter.
Whatever anyone may think about India’s censorship of the BBC documentary and its ethical or legal status in its own right, and whatever anyone may think about “free speech absolutism” as a concept, I don’t see how anyone can disagree that complying with such censorship is opposed to the principles of “free speech absolutism”. Obviously if you are willing to curtail free speech under any circumstances for any reason, you are by definition not a “free speech absolutist”.
BeepKillBeep made this very point in their original post #2805 introducing the subject nearly fifty posts and ten hours ago. You’ve spent most of the interim hijacking the thread onto the side issue of Indian censorship, whereas the part that’s relevant to the topic of this thread is Musk’s actions.
You have a way with words, @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness. Kudos!
Here’s hoping that the target of your ire – and that of the rest of us – does, in fact, fuck off and maybe even uses the opportunity for some introspection, if his tiny addled and bigoted brain is capable of it.
Got anything from the Victorian era?
Your kneejerk defense of obvious government censorship is no more convincing than any other defenders of bullshit. Bullshit is bullshit, and banning documentaries, or Rushdie books, etc., is always bullshit.
Loser Donald is planning to throw Twooth Social under the bus and return to Twitter.
What does this mean for Devin Nunes?
Musk could buy Truth Social for a few billion. It would be like buying a valuable social media platform and turning it into something worthless, but without requiring the extra step.
Unemployment?
Back to milking cows instead of Trump?
We are talking about Modi who has in his term legalized Gay marriage in India, legalized abortion and expanded women’s rights, you ignorant fecal tapeworm.
As Clint Eastwood said : You must be a legend in your OWN mind. The rest of the world is laughing at your feeble efforts to control gun laws while children die, they pity your helplessness as Roe v. Wade is overturned and you shat your pants during the midterms. We have a saying for that : “Rassi jal gayi, bal nahi gaye” - google it.
May I suggest the latter parts of your alimentary canal as a home for your righteous indignation.
I started out with a defense of the Indian government resisting strong-arming by a rich socialist media outlet, but you had to extend that to the support of one person.
Trilobites called, they want you to return them their brains.
Funny you said that. I have been sitting in Padma-asana, the yogic lotus pose, while I have watched your squirming song and dance.
Feel free to pop a prozac or two while you are at it. Go watch Tucker Carlson
Thanks for the good laugh. You’re like the feeble subservient hyena in a pack that hides behind the leader of the pack cheering. Get original!
@Kimstu - I think I posted before a link to EU Government Censorship. Here is the link again : https://brownstone.org/articles/how-the-eu-is-forcing-twitter-to-censor-and-musk-cant-stop-it/
From the link : " Make no mistake about it. Twitter censorship is government censorship. But the government in question is not the US government, but rather the European Union, and the EU is, in effect, imposing its censorship on the entire world."
These matters have exactly zero relevance to the issue of Modi’s using governmental power to suppress a documentary critical of him. This is just misdirection.
You do understand that the Americans who would criticize Modi for using governmental power to suppress a documentary critical of him are exactly the same Americans who are mostly likely to support gun control as well as reproductive rights. Don’t you?
I’m trying to understand why you think these are effective or even reasonable arguments in this particular thread of the conversation. You’re engaging in red herring fallacies.
Also, you do understand that some people criticizing Modi here might not be American?
Damn, you got me, and I have seen the error of my ways. Here, let me take a crack at being “original”. All the facts carefully researched in the BBC documentary (which I’m sure you haven’t seen) are wrong. All the facts in the Al Jazzera article, in the Washington Post article, and all those that were provided to you in this thread are also all wrong. Constitutional protection of free speech against government censorship is only important in America where it protects you. In India, government censorship is a positive thing (your words) that makes for a vibrant democracy (also your words). I see it all now. 
You never struck me as a particularly bright poster, but I see now that you’re not just an ordinary everyday asshole. You’re a dangerous uninformed bigot who is a threat to democracy wherever you may slither. You have not the slightest understanding what human rights and freedoms really are, or what democracy actually means. You’re the worst kind of authoritarian bigot. You’re also, naturally, a liar. You promised to end your pathetic participation in this discussion earlier, and yet, here you still are. I, for one, would be grateful if you would fuck right off and keep your fascist cheerleading to yourself.
@am77494: it seems to me that you’re not understanding the issue here. This isn’t about generic censorship. This is about the government in power prohibiting criticism of itself. That undermines the core concept of democracy. The people can only know who they want to vote for if they can get all the information, both positive and negative.
That’s the connection with authoritarianism and fascism. It is only those types of governments who silence their critics. A democracy needs its critics to hold those in power responsible.
That they want to ban this documentary should only make you wonder what it is they don’t want you to see. If it would cause “riots,” then that’s all the more reason to wonder what information it contains that might upset people. Sure, that information may inaccurate, but you can only know that if you watch it.
The ability to criticize the government is the core, essential part of freedom of speech. It’s part of the citizen’s duty to look at criticisms of those in power, so that the people remain in control.