'Iranian YouTube' CEO Sentenced To 10 Years Over Video Uploaded By User (rferl.org) 125
The founder and manager of Iran's main video-sharing platform, referred to by some as Iran's YouTube, has been sentenced to 10 years in prison after being convicted of "encouraging corruption" over a video posted by a user. Radio Free Europe reports: In the video posted on Aparat.com last year, children were asked whether they know how they were born, Iranian media reported. The verdict against Aparat Chief Executive Officer Mohammad Javad Shakuri Moghadam was reported by domestic media on October 25. The sentence was reportedly issued in mid-October by Branch 28 of the Revolutionary Court presided over by judge Mohammad Moghiseh, who is known for handing down harsh sentences. Moghiseh was last year blacklisted by the U.S. State Department for miscarriage of justice.
Shakuri Moghadam, who was awarded a government medal of honor as one of the country's top entrepreneurs about two years ago, can appeal the sentence. The controversial video was said to have been removed an hour after being posted on Aparat, which has millions of Iranian users. The producers of the video were also arrested with authorities then claiming that they had received complaints from concerned citizens and families. The BBC reported that seven others accused in the case have been each sentenced to 11 years in prison after being convicted of "encouraging corruption" and "publishing vulgar content."
Shakuri Moghadam, who was awarded a government medal of honor as one of the country's top entrepreneurs about two years ago, can appeal the sentence. The controversial video was said to have been removed an hour after being posted on Aparat, which has millions of Iranian users. The producers of the video were also arrested with authorities then claiming that they had received complaints from concerned citizens and families. The BBC reported that seven others accused in the case have been each sentenced to 11 years in prison after being convicted of "encouraging corruption" and "publishing vulgar content."
Who did he forget to bribe? Smells like bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
So...what's the real story?
Who did he forget to bribe?
Did he support a critic of a leader?
What are they not telling us?
I don't believe Iran really applies Sharia Law fairly. Regimes like that use it as justification for routine totalitarianism and totalitarians LOVE successful businessmen who play ball with the regime. Strict purity laws are designed to silence critics much more than apply moral codes. Something is missing from this story.
This is in line with Iran (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how you evaluate Israel, for their deeply religious government?
They're fairly secular (Score:3)
In any case the only reasons Jews & Christians aren't doing the same thing as the Muslims is that they don't have the power to do so. It's not like we don't have the history of them doing the exact same thing as they fell out of power.
Given the lack of miracles since the invention of the camera, journalism and the air plane, the constant disagreements on God and lack of much hard evidence beyond religious texts themselves, Rel
Re: (Score:2)
> In any case the only reasons Jews & Christians aren't doing the same thing as the Muslims
How soon we forget. Do look up the Srebenica Massacre, the murder of approximately 8000 Muslim men and boys by the Bosnian Serb Army in 1995. Many thousands of the surviving women were raped. It's important for people to be aware that genocide and abuse are not unique any major faith.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are you seriously making a claim that Srebrenica massacre (at least get the name of the genocide right if you're going to pretend to be all righteously indignant about it) was a massacre driven by religion?
In Hague, it was prosecuted and convictions secured for ethnic cleansing, not a religious one.
Re: (Score:1)
Why not just accept the reality, religions are the excuse and not the reason. They wanted to kill a bunch of people and steal their stuff, ohh look, they are the other religion, they believe in demons not God, see according to our religion we are allowed to kill them and steal their stuff, approved by the religion. Now you go you idiot little believer cannon fodder and kill them, steal their stuff and give it all to me, otherwise I will kill you for looting what is now my stuff (as ruled the monarchs who ba
Re: (Score:1)
I have two questions I would like for you to think about carefully before you answer them.
1. Why is it that there were no cultures in humanity that weren't religious just century ago? And at the same time, we know from archaeological findings that essentially every culture Homo Sapiens ever had, and even some of the less successful members of Homo family left evidence of early proto-religions, typically of Shamanist or Animist variety?
2. Why is it that intertribal war is a norm for humanity in spite of the
Re: (Score:3)
> 1. Why is it that there were no cultures in humanity that weren't religious just century ago?
There have been non-religious social groups documented since at least the time of Aristotle. They haven't been complete societies, but they exist as stable _groups_ within various societies and cultures. Have I somehow confused you with the idea that Christians, _also_, have a blood soaked history, even compared to modrn Muslim fanatics? I suspect it would be very difficult to separate proto-human ar pe-histor
Re: (Score:1)
>There have been non-religious social groups documented since at least the time of Aristotle.
You're dodging the question. Were members of these groups religious? Just because social groups formed that weren't quite as religious as those surrounding them, their members still visited the temples. They still had faith in supernatural.
>Because the victors survive to educate their biological and cultural descendants. The losers, I'm sad to say, do not. "Carthage Delenda Est", and in the end, Troy fell.
We'r
Re: (Score:2)
Roughly 500,000,000 million
That's a big number.
Re: (Score:3)
500,000,000 million is approximately 7% of the globe's nearly 8,000,000,000 people. Whether they are growing or shrinking depends on which survey you examine. It is perhaps fewer than the "1 in 10" claimed percentage of homosexuals in the world, but it's enough to be a politically significant part of most societies.
"Begging to differ" is merely courtesy, and I did offer evidence. It's not precisely the evidence you sought to contradict your point, You seem to be claiming that religion is superior in a "soci
Re: (Score:2)
True, thank you for catching that. I of course meant 500,000,000.
Re: (Score:2)
>Whether they are growing or shrinking depends on which survey you examine.
It's utterly self-evident at this point that it's shrinking. "Godlessness" as most of the world calls it is mostly purview of Western Atheism riding on the tale end of the Enlightenment. There are fundamental problems there we have no solution for:
1. Western people are not breeding to even sustainable levels any more. They are slowly selecting themselves out of the gene pool, voluntarily. The only exception are the religious ones.
Re: They're fairly secular (Score:2)
Religion is successful because of a strong arm.
When you convince people that only their way of life is right and everyone else is scum, they become emboldened.
Then comes the atrocities.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be much of the modern religion, adapted for modern time.
This and your statement about language being a requirement for religion suggest extreme ignorance of early findings into Homo Sapiens and its precursors. Animism and Shamanism are the primary early religions, and they do not feature things you're talking about. Instead they're either animal worship or ancestor worship, functioning as effective tool to embed certain practices that evolution found to be viable into new species that is signific
Re: (Score:2)
You can't even have complex concepts like religion without language. You can have them without writing, but that's not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be science denial, as we have archaelogical evidence of just that.
Go to your nearest university library and ask librarian for entry level literature into cave drawings and archaeology. They're almost universally Animist.
Re: (Score:2)
and most hardline Muslim countries. When the United States overthrew their governments in the 60s and 70s the only place to hide from their dictators was the Mosques because regular folk wouldn't allow the government to spy there (it's sacreligious), so that's where revolutions started, and as a result the governments are incredibly far right wing.
You seem oblivious to how these countries were formed to begin with. Most of them didn't even exist prior to WWI, while the ones that did had very different borders. The sectarian violence comes from borders that were very arbitrarily drawn with zero consideration for the different people who lived within them. Why do you think Courdistan spans across 5 countries? That didn't happen all by itself.
All of it was drawn for the financial benefit of two European countries who were still very much in imperial mod
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Borders were drawn purposefully, usually to divide religious and ethnic groups up among several countries so that those groups could not unify against the conquerors and might instead spend time competing against those outside their group within the same country.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that the European empires were following that narrative? No, they were trying to conquer peoples and lands for their own aggrandizement. Making people happy was only done as much as necessary to keep the populations at bay
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The secular government in Iran was the one that was established after the 1953 coup, which was backed by western influences. Iran was a modern secular country, albeit led by a corrupt western-backed Shah, until the Islamists threw him out in 1979. And during the 1979 revolution, there were more than the Islamists protesting. There was a leftist body in opposition to the Shah as well. I remember their marches in cities in the US.
rsilvergun is just a dumb kid.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
and all "Death to America" and stuff. Did you think that came from nowhere? Did you think they were yelling these slogans because of disgust at McDonalds
Yes. Though I think it's a misinterpretation. They were sending you a friendly warning about your food choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws are applied like this EVERYWHERE.
Laws are always applied based on what the law enforcement and judicial officials decide. You only need to look at the court case against Assange in the UK for an example of law disproportionate application of the law. Assange has been kept in solitary confinement, denied access to his lawyers. The selectivity and harshness of the application of the law against Assange highlights how the rule of law in the UK, the US and other democratic countries can be similar to pl
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as somebody makes a declaration of universal moral equivalency, you know they're going to say some stupid bullshit like "I don't know why Courts consider it OK to punish somebody for jumping bail." Durrrr
Re:Who did he forget to bribe? Smells like bullshi (Score:5, Informative)
This is not a conviction by state's justice system, but by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. They're a parallel "state within a state" system in Iran where Iranian military is tasked with protections of the borders of the state, while IRGC is tasked with protection of the Islamic system in the nation. Their competencies include preventing foreign interference (hence them being primarily responsible for Iranian actions in Persian Gulf), prevention of coups by the military (which is why they are a "state within the state") and rooting out deviancy.
This is a sentence passed on something they have competence on. Deviancy. Way sentence is handed out is not particularly unusual either. A typical time for deviancy that requires a death penalty, such as homosexuality usually takes hours from beating confession out of the perpetrator to conviction and hanging. Bribing IRGC judges is quite a bit harder than normal judges, because they tend to be selected based on ideological fervour.
Materialist nonsense like "creating jobs" is irrelevant when matters of spirituality, such as deviancy are concerned. Spirituality obviously takes precedence over materialist whining.
Re:Who did he forget to bribe? Smells like bullshi (Score:4, Insightful)
Materialist nonsense like "creating jobs" is irrelevant when matters of spirituality, such as deviancy are concerned. Spirituality obviously takes precedence over materialist whining.
Growing up in America, I don't believe religious people are as religious as they say they are. I think it's a means of controlling the populace...Sharia Law for peasants and as much booze, cocaine, and hookers as one can consume for the ruling class. I don't believe the ruling class of any country is spiritual, but my perspective is limited by living in the US all my life. I guarantee you the leaders of the megachurches that wield so much power here live NOTHING like Christ.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, even back when population control was irrelevant, when we were still living in small familial tribes... religion was there. We know this from archaeological findings. We know that even some of the less successful members of Homo family had religious beliefs, because they left significant amount of evidence for it.
My point is that religion has existed longer than humans have existed. It is an evolutionary adaptation. We the modern atheists are the massive exception, and judgement on whether we're a
Re:Who did he forget to bribe? Smells like bullshi (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion is what you get when humans were too ignorant to even understand the questions that living on a planet hurtling through space brings up.
Why does the moon come from and why does it go through phases? Why are there seasons? Why does the ground shake sometimes? Why did my child get sick and die?
Somebody, sometime made up a bullshit answer that sounded good and thousands of years later, here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
>Religion is what you get when humans were too ignorant to even understand the questions that living on a planet hurtling through space brings up.
So... today? Why do we exist? What is the purpose of life? Why do we act the way we act? What is out there? Why did my mom die from coronavirus, but neighbours mom is fine?
It's a combination of peak hubris combined with peak ignorance to think that we have even began to tackle questions you yourself posit to be critical to existence of religion.
Re: Who did he forget to bribe? Smells like bullsh (Score:2)
The difference is that we know enough about the universe to be fairly certain that the answers to the questions we all have left unanswered is not "invisible magic man in the sky who loves you but will not hesitate to torture you for eternity if you touched your sick"
And unlike you, we don't have the hubris to pretend we have answers to the questions we actually don't have an answer to.
Re: (Score:2)
>The difference is that we know enough about the universe to be fairly certain that the answers to the questions we all have left unanswered is not "invisible magic man in the sky who loves you but will not hesitate to torture you for eternity if you touched your sick"
The part you're missing is that most religions didn't answer those questions that way. And when they did, there was usually an evolutionary reason to do so, because every major religion today went through over a thousand of years of evoluti
Re: Who did he forget to bribe? Smells like bullsh (Score:2)
Religion did not exist before humans invented language, period. It literally could not be invented before then.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that drawing skill is dependent on language?
Re: Who did he forget to bribe? Smells like bulls (Score:2)
What are you on? I want to make sure I avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
Original religious depictions long predate written language and are almost universally pictographs. Typically Animist.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a sentence passed on something they have competence on. Deviancy.
Not challenging your overall message at all, but I would rephrase that as 'Supposed Deviancy'.
Personally I consider their religious beliefs to be highly deviant.
A typical time for deviancy that requires a death penalty
Again, no "deviancy" requires a death penalty. You're using their deviant language and it's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that for your opinion to be relevant, you must be in a relevant position of authority. Judge presiding over the case has relevant authority. You and I do not. I honestly feel like I'm explaining this to a five year old: "yes, these things that those people from a completely different culture that live in a completely different part of the planet, with completely different views on life look atrocious from our point of view". But that doesn't change their views in any way, and they're sti
Re: (Score:3)
The problem here is that for your opinion to be relevant, you must be in a relevant position of authority. Judge presiding over the case has relevant authority. You and I do not. I honestly feel like I'm explaining this to a five year old
The irony is that you're talking like a five year old. "The Judge is a judge so he must be right and you can't challenge him."
The judge is a fucking idiot and I refuse to accept his language, and too fucking right I'm calling you out for using it.
You're assuming that me using their language is "wrong".
No. I'm very definitely telling you that using their language is wrong.
But in their view, you believing that core moral principles can even be changed by mere humans is wrong. Because
..that would allow their authority and privilege to be challenged, and/or call into question their pathetic superstitions.
Both of which are necessary, which is explicitly why I do it.
Re: (Score:2)
>The irony is that you're talking like a five year old. "The Judge is a judge so he must be right and you can't challenge him."
And then you follow it with
>The judge is a fucking idiot and I refuse to accept his language, and too fucking right I'm calling you out for using it.
Do you understand that this is what a five year old throwing a temper tantrum generally looks like?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all five year olds talk like that.
(I feel the need to now point out that was sarcasm, as I doubt your ability to recognise it.)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that you think that you're being sarcastic. Which suggests that you're unable to recognise that you're having a temper tantrum on this issue.
And it's not that I can't understand why you're having it. I find judges views at least as abhorrent as you do, if not more. I just don't find it constructive to go "fuck him, he's wrong, I'm right, because my morals are right and his are wrong!" There's nothing in this line of inquiry that is worth exploring.
There are Two Irans (Score:2)
Most Iranians have western values and hate the mullahs. Certainly when I was there back in 1987.
For example, in Pakistan you see ghost ladies (full purdahs), In Iran you see tight jeans and make up under an imposed head covering. And many women in powerful positions.
There are two governments. A liberal elected one and the Mullahs.
But the mullahs have a powerful minority and that minority has the guns. So you get these conflicting versions of the country. The mullahs can be vert nasty, and have become
Re: (Score:2)
>Most Iranians have western values and hate the mullahs. Certainly when I was there back in 1987.
Let me guess. You visited one of the largest cities, never went to the living areas for locals and think that you've seen Iranians?
What you've seen is the small Westernised elite that is almost universally derided in Iran. The women with that head covering stuck to the back of her head? They're called "Western dolls" among Iranian mainstream. It's a slur.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Came in via Pakistan, Zahedan. Then Shiraz, Isfahen, Teran and out via Tabriz. I did not go to the North East (Mashed) which is where the most conservatives are.
So I suspect I saw a lot more of it than you did. (Have you even been there?)
One little anecdote is when visiting the mirrored mosque in Shiraz, an official did not like the extent of my girlfriend's scarf. A gaggle of women surrounded them, pushed the official out of the way and bundled my friend inside.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I haven't been through the southern part of the nation. I would be risking my life going there.
As for your anecdote, this is normal across more conservative Islamic world. Women have to group up and resist officials because when "they don't like her scarf", it often means "they will want to check her virginity" and well, turns out she doesn't have it any more on the exit side.
This is of course a familial thing among the Western minded elite. Mainstream, they'll publicly announce the Westernised slut was
Ah yes, fundamentalist religions... (Score:2)
Let's have more fun and less mental in our isms.
when government and religion are intermixed (Score:3)
is when it becomes illegal to educate the people
Education is religion's greatest enemy and threat.
Why is everything about the USA? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I said that in 2016 and here we are. The only time there was some quite was when Obama was in office. He would drone kill thousands and there wouldn't be a peep. Now China kills Uighurs and there is constant noise about the USA betraying its old ally.
Here is my guess. Binden might win. In a year he will be replaced by Kamala. And then for next 3 years there will be constant chatter on how bad or good she is doing as the first president without a vagina. Of course, rest of the world can go fuck itself.
What's the content of the video? (Score:2)
children were asked whether they know how they were born,
The story quotes "Iranian Media" .. what was the actual content of the video? The state media description seems somewhat innocuous. Something else would have to be included in the material to offend the Iranian government this much.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed.
Strange - when I read this, the first thing that came to mind was the story from the Bible in which all of humanity is punished for the sin of their father; or rather, we "inherited" the sin.
... I'm a Muslim, so not sure why it came to mind, but it's not something we believe.
Re:conservatives (Score:5, Interesting)
The first thing that came to my mind was this:
Trump calls on Iran not to execute 27-year-old champion wrestler [foxnews.com]
There are a couple of interesting things to note:
1: Fox NEVER mentions that he was convicted of murder
2: The comments express outrage and call the Iranian regime "savages" for executing a convicted murderer.
Note that Fox says he "was sentenced to be executed for his participation in the 2018 protests against the Islamic Republic’s economic policies."
Now that may be the truth, but ostensibly he was executed for MURDER. I remember asking why they suddenly agreed with Amnesty International What? Who us? No, we don't agree is Amnesty International - we just hate Iran.
By contrast, when Jamal Khashoggi was murdered, the comments section was filled up with people saying "Who cares? He was a terrorist sympathizer" (even though that wasn't true. He wasn't an American citizen, they rightfully pointed out. He wasn't a US citizen. His children were. He lived in the US. He wrote for a US newspaper that Trump hates.
So what's the difference?
It's plain to see. Anyone perceived as an "enemy" of Trump is fair game to execute, however the enemy of their enemy is their friend.
Where the hell has that gotten us?
Re: (Score:2)
It's best not to think of Fox as a news outlet. A poorly researched low effort propaganda outlet maybe, but not a news outlet.
Re: conservatives (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a video sharing service. It's like youtube in that it lets people share videos. It's definitely not youtube, but that's the easiest way to explain what it is.
I like how you call everyone you disagree with a communist. That could only be true if you were wandering around some communist party meeting arguing with random people.
Re: (Score:1)
The orange angry man is losing by the biggest margin of any president ever.
Re: (Score:1)
Still the best the country had to offer its citizens.
The rest of the world calls that a failed state.
Still, makes for an fun sideshow from real life as America continues its rapid descent into a 3rd world nation.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the issue is that since Adam has sinned we have all inherited a sinful nature. (Romans 5:12-21). We are all guilty and do not deserve life. But God is gracious and merciful and extends life beyond what we deserve.
I also am confused. You claim to be a Muslim and have a partial understanding of the Bible. Do not Muslims and even the Koran itself uphold the teachings of the Bible?
It's somewhat more complicated than that. Muslims recognize Jesus as a messenger of god but don't have the whole religion of guilt thing. Islamic beliefs overlap with the christian bible in many areas, but are not the same. Both Jews and Muslims believe that god alone is the ultimate power. Christianity turned Jesus into a virtual god himself, something that would be blasphemy for both Jews and Muslims. John 14:6 “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Fath
Re: (Score:2)
You can be one religion yet have read/understand another. The short, dirty version of the relation between the Bible and the Koran (according to the Koran) is that Jesus was the 1st prophet of Allah/God who taught his followers by teaching. His followers wrote down his teachings and then the church screwed it up when they sent it to the masses so, Allah/God sent a second prophet, Mohammed, to correct this mistake and write Allah/God's teachings himself. This is an oversimplification and missing a lot of
Re: (Score:2)
Allah/God sent a second prophet, Mohammed, to correct this mistake and write Allah/God's teachings himself.
This soooo funny. God "allmighty"or "allknowing" BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, George Carlin is my prophet and pope so, take that for what it's worth.
They're going after Section 230 (Score:1, Flamebait)
I can't (Score:2)
And even if they would the United States is exporting our nasty brand of right wing authoritarianism over there too.
Re: conservatives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The Iranian government was secular, until the US meddled.
Re:conservatives (Score:5, Funny)
As President Bush always claimed, they hate us for our freedom. Beginning with the Patriot Act, I guess the strategy has always been to become less free so they'll hate us less.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't bribery, it was more like extortion. "Nice assets you have in those international banks. It'd be a pity if anything happened to them."
And would have worked if the Republicans weren't so concerned with making sure everything the Democrats do fail regardless of the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
. . . really? So the pallet of euros and gold flown in on a cargo plane to end-run the Obama administration's own currency controls targeting Iran wasn't bribe money? Fascinating.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I thought the far left were the ones demanding "safe spaces". And in fact, they are getting them from services like FaceBook, whose own moderators admit their anti-conservative, anti-Trump bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people have an anti-trump bias like they have a anti-communist or an anti-dictatorship bias.
Re: conservatives (Score:2)
Some people have an anti-Trump bias like they have an anti-STD bias or anti-N@z! bias.
Re: (Score:2)
The best argument in favor of sex education is a kid coming forward and saying that he or she is a victim of sexual abuse after learning about consent.
Re: (Score:1)
Forgive me if I don't find child abuse a good excuse for sex education.
Not that consent was ever covered in sex education classes at school. We didn't need to be told not to rape.
Re: (Score:3)
All over the world sex ed is part of the syllabus, the only exceptions being countries where secularism has a long way to go against religious moral doctrine. Predominantly this means Islamic countries and also countries like Poland, where they banned sex ed and branded everyone who dares to teach children about this a pedophile.
The argument being made here is that children who
Re: (Score:2)
A kid coming forward and wondering why their stomach is growing and they feel sick in the morning is also a pretty good argument. Educated kids are less likely to have kids.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be honest, I don't understand your diatribe - the first or the second. Here are a couple of links that might help you understand my perspective:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... [forbes.com]
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
By pushing for changes to the protections afforded by Section 230 conservatives are looking to force private corporations to carry their messages. The xkcd that I linked explains that private corporations are not censoring you or suppressing your speech - they are exercising there right to not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be missing the point that private corporations and individual persons that are not elected officials - everyone but the government - are not required to support your idea of 'free speech'. Private companies and individuals have the right to ignore you/block you/ban you, etc. You can't force non-government entities to carry your message. You might not like that but that is how the laws in the US work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives want to hold tech executives liable for the speech of others, whether that it is because tech executives allowed certain speech or because tech executives blocked certain speech. The outcome of the desired changes to current law goes both ways and in the end looks a lot like what just happened in Iran. Also, I don't see how you can compel private corporations to carry messages that they do not agree with - while internet services are publicly available they are private spaces in the same way
Re: conservatives (Score:4, Insightful)
And you are oversimplifying Section 230. Are you sure you really know what it says?
You want to force private corporations to carry messages that they do not agree with? Your right to free speech means that the government cannot suppress your speech, and that does not extend to non-government entities.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to defeat their argument maybe you should actually say why changing section 230 would not accomplish that, or maybe explain what it is instead of acting like you do but you're just too smart to tell anyone
The right to free speech has nothing to do with their argument but you're still acting as if it does. So I guess you still don'
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Try this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... [forbes.com]
And let me quote part of it for you:
"President Trump now wants to change Section 230. He signed a new executive order on Thursday that will try to curb how social media sites use the legislation to prevent legal action. “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers it has faced in American history,” he said in the Oval Office."
Right there, Trump makes it about free speech. It is so obviously about free speech that
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this will keep it on your level: https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Here is another link for you:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: conservatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Since these social media companies are unfairly censoring them they don't think they deserve legal protection
No their argument is very simple: We only believe in Free Speech when it supports us.
Protests in favour of Trump? "Good people on both sides". Protests against us? "Anarchists, why aren't we sending in the national guard!"
Fox News giving Trump a 4 year long blowjob: "Proper news", any news agency reporting something negative "Fake news".
Twitter letting Trumps filth go out unfiltered, "no comment", Twitter daring to put a fact check link up, "Fucking repeal Section 230! These people belong in jail for bias!"
Re: conservatives (Score:2)
These people are confused snowflakes. Governments censor. Internet companies do not.
Re:conservatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:conservatives (Score:4, Interesting)
Generally speaking, yes, as long as they can opt out for their own children if they don't like the approach. Nobody's going to suggest that a video on Youtube posted for one hour (before being taken down) permits government authorities to jail anyone for 10 years.
Re: (Score:3)
So the solution is to take a choice away from corporations or persons?
The thing that you call censorship might just the be social consequences of your message. You have a right to free speech, free from government suppression of your speech. There is no law protecting you from the social consequences of your message. You can't force a private corporation (which thanks to Citizen United means a personhood) to carry your message.
Re: (Score:2)
That has never, in my lifetime, been true, at least not for most of those who identify as having "conservative" politics.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The way it should be for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only the left wants people to go to jail for their opinions, your misguided.
You are omitting the hyperconservative regime in Iran mentioned in the story, and the hyperconservative regime in the United States that recently jailed plenty of people for their speech--but only after beating them.
Re: (Score:2)
You've probably heard about it and forgotten it, but protesters in Lafayette Square were gassed before curfew.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
You've probably seen lots of video of Police palling around with Back the Blue demonstrators after curfew, while enforcing "the law" against BLM protestors. "For my friends: Everything. For my Enemies: The Law."
Re: (Score:1)
Ah yes, the well known support for freedom of speech by right wingers, of course they only mean their freedom, not everyone else’s. It’s the way it should be for the rightists retard media, like a News Corpse blabbering lie machine Faux News.
Going to be a lot of orange fan sad soon.
Re: The way it should be for... (Score:2)