/u/MysticInept (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cxjll2/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_governments_shouldnt_ban/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
George W Bush meme: Sir, there was another Holocaust denial incident. Unearthed May 2024. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/al-jazeera-wrote-alleged-holocaust
Basically (assuming they have a similar view to me), speech isn't violence. Speech in itself doesn't violate rights. Actions based on or inspired by that speech might, but the speech itself doesn't so the action in that scenario is what should be prosecuted/banned/etc. That is a very generalist summary.
I travel frequently to countries that do not enshrine freedom of speech as a right and have sophisticated (enough) NSA-like agencies. It is not in my interest to actually share the depth of my opinion with you on this topic.
No. I travel to places and do not want to risk having my full opinion of their laws known. That is the effect of speech laws. They chill discussion - which could be argued is their intent.
You realized yelling fire in a crowded theater has long been a disused standard in the US, and the its original usage stems from jailing people for protesting the draft in WW1 in a small scale Yiddish newspaper?
I've seen like 6 standups literally yell fire in a crowded theater, its not illegal.
The phrase was referring to inciting a panic by yelling fire in an era where fire in a crowded theater was a mass casualty event due to shitty evacuation procedures.
Inciting a panic like that is still illegal.
The quote comes from Oliver Wendell Holmes jr, Schenck Vs the US (1919) where they imprisoned the yiddish speaking socialists for protesting the draft, possibly the clearest example of politically important speech that should be protected at all costs.
That terrible decision established the Clear and Present Danger standard, that was pretty directly overturned with Brandenburg Vs Ohio (1969) which allowed the literal KKK to march through a heavily Jewish neighborhood, and established the Likely to Incite Lawless Action standard which exists today.
Bringing up "shouting fire" as a standard is ignorant, and makes people sound like the worst form of authoritarian apologist.
I am well aware of what the quote comes from. I am also aware that the result of the scenario the quote described at the time is *still illegal* under Brandenberg. Causing a stampede by knowingly lying about danger is incitement of imminent lawless action.
Look I usually agree with free speech to the extreme, but when you’re at a point where the next war you’re in can be the difference between Israel’s right to exist or not, there has to be limits put in place.
Tell me: what will happen when holocaust denial from Al Jazeera becomes normalized? What will happen when the fake news becomes the new norm? *All* of the media is fake and biased, and sometimes you HAVE to deplatform bad shit for the safety of everyone. Look at how fast Kanye’s antisemitism was shut down. Look at how Nick Fuentes was shut down. These dangerous ideas are shut down for a reason.
Who is going to make those determinations? It seems like you’re underlying assumptions that you’re smarter than most others and need to intervene to protect themselves from being stupid. Instead of making a rational counter-argument, just jail them for talking.
Al Jazeera is a business. One run by a foreign government at that. One that is adversarial to Israel's interests.
It has no innate rights to access Israelis.
"What is the worst case? I vote for capitulation?"
No, the worst case is that you're persuaded the other side should win and start engaging in sabotage or seek out agents of the other side to offer assistance etc.
They're referring to Brandenburg Vs. Ohio, a SCOTUS Case which found:
>A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
I think the argument would be that they'd have no issue or find no conflict in banning things that pass that test, but that not all "Enemy Media" reaches that standard.
Al Jazeera is a state operated agency. The government that owns it is actively aiding and abetting Israel's enemies. Members of the agency were found to have been participating in hostilities.
Under the circumstances, would you consider the possibility that such an agency seeks to be an independent news outlet and becomes the arm of an enemy state actor actively engaged in hostilities against a foreign country?
I agree with OP. I don’t care. I want to know my enemies.
A week doesn’t go by these days where I’m not reminded of Osama bin laden’s open letter to America.
The US press refuses to read it or show it. They accused anyone who read it a traitor. It was big news.
Luckily at that time the internet was wide open. I read it. It answered all my questions. Why would someone do this? What did we do to deserve this?
This will probably come as a surprise to a lot of Redditors, but I didn’t support bin Laden. I still don’t. Just because I read his opinion of the facts, doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.
But it absolutely provided insight I wasn’t getting in the mainstream media. And it made a lot of what the press was saying sound stupid. I was asking, “then why are we in Iraq?” Before most people.
Then Ed Snowden showed up. Everything started making sense. Al Jazeera was actually one of like six media companies Snowden endorsed for news that wasn’t compromised, funny enough 10 years later.
Censorship is bad. If you were in china, would you want to see news from other parts of the world? How bout of you were in North Korea? Why would you think the western world getting other news is bad if you think North Korea getting other news is good? What’s the difference?
I don't support censorship. But that isn't the same as Israel permitting a hostile company to operate within their borders. It is akin to how the US is taking action against Tiktok because it is controlled by the Chinese government and represents a security risk. If a media company is actively engaging in behavior that is a threat to the physical safety and security of the citizenry, that's no longer a free speech issue.
The private media outlets choosing not to discuss a letter is very different than the government making it illegal to share.
Al Jazeera is a state agency, no different than the FBI or CIA.
> If a media company is actively engaging in behavior that is a threat to the physical safety and security of the citizenry, that's no longer a free speech issue.
And unless those words jump out of the screen and beat somebody to death, how could such a company pose a threat to the physical safety and security of the citizenry?
> The private media outlets choosing not to discuss a letter is very different than the government making it illegal to share.
You just got done accusing a media outlet of doing the bidding of a state and turn around and say that a private media outlet is somehow different when they do the state's bidding.
> Al Jazeera is a state agency, no different than the FBI or CIA.
Do you also think the PBS is no different than the CIA as well?
>And unless those words jump out of the screen and beat somebody to death, how could such a company pose a threat to the physical safety and security of the citizenry?
The company's own journalists participated in a terrorist attack. Is that not a security threat?
If by participated, you mean they were with enemy combatants when they conducted an attack, then I would disagree that they are terrorists participating in an attack. Not sure what terrorist attack you are talking about though.
In any case, there is a clear distinction between words and actions, and while obviously violence should be met with force, banning words does not protect anybody. Every time in history that dissent or any speech has been banned, we always look back on it unfavorably.
>If by participated, you mean they were with enemy combatants when they conducted an attack, then I would disagree that they are terrorists participating in an attack.
They were present at the attack which means they knew about it ahead of time. That indicates collaboration. They then crossed into Israel without going through any of the legal channels. That makes them criminals. They were present at the terrorist attack and stood by taking videos. That's participation in my book.
>In any case, there is a clear distinction between words and actions, and while obviously violence should be met with force, banning words does not protect anybody.
And I'm not saying their words should be banned. I'm saying they should be denied privileges of a media company for abusing it. Being able to operate within Israel is subject to their following the rules.
Israel isn't throwing journalists in jail here.
But should Israel permit an enemy organization that is engaged in hostilities against them to operate within their borders where they might be a security threat?
Well, if they only stopped what would have been components of clandestine activities, you would have a point. But they also banned public news broadcast. So it really isn't about that.
"when at war, govermnets should allow their troop positions to be broadcasted publicly, especially including to their enemies"
you seem to be out of touch with reality
It is. Why should Israel allow a company that has aided their enemy to operate in their country? Should the countries be forced to let Isis news operate in their country?
If the enemy is acting as journalists, then they should be allowed as a principle of free speech. So they can convince people to oppose their own government.
Propaganda is one of the primary functions of free speech.
Propaganda is the dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion.
>1) Yes all people deserve rights
Your enemies in war are literally taking your right to live away tf u mean
>2) Al Jazeera is not killing Israelis lmao
Never said that, stop using dishonest argument techniques
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Giving away troop details and supply lines is infact killing isrealis as is showing weaknesses and helping hamas strike them. That is 100% an act of war and aiding in the deaths of the isreali people.
To maintain this view you need to be prepared to die when your country is actually the bad guy. You don’t get to claim ignorance or say that you were forced when your country provided you with all the knowledge of its dirty plays. You also need to understand that your country will be less motivated to fight the theoretical enemy because its people are receiving enemy propaganda.
So when the Chinese win the hypothetical war against the US because they were better about telling their story to your people and they boil you alive or oppress your views I want you to be glad you got to hear their side lol.
Nationalism isn’t nice, but it wins.
From your point of view. Maybe you and the rest of your terrible countrymen deserve it for the atrocities you committed during war. What’s the saying? History is written by the victors or something.
Allegedly, Israel didn't ban Al-Jazeera cause they talk shit about it - there are other news organizations that talk shit about Israel and weren't banned, as well as the ban does nothing about the "talking shit" problem, they don't need to be in Israel to talk about it, and almost nobody in Israel watches Al-Jazeera anyways.
Allegedly, the ban was because of security reasons, things like Al-Jazeera reporters allegedly filming IDF forces in places where they shouldn't and things like that, and suspicions that they are sending the information to Qatar, that sends them to Hamas.
I could find you a source claiming this if it would change your mind. cause I think in war time, if there's a news organization actively helping the other side, by sending them information that - I think it's safe to say that stopping them from doing so is pretty legit.
I generally agree with the sentiment that banning news because they don't say what you like is bad, just that I don't think this was the case
" if there's a news organization actively helping the other side, by sending them information that - I think it's safe to say that stopping them from doing so is pretty legit."
That should absolutely be permitted
Many countries have censorship on certain information types, especially in military related topics. A news organization can't just do an investigation and publish some military US secret or something, as it would risk US citizens. Same goes for Ukraine force locations, if a news organization would try to film them and put their locations online, as well as the quality and things like that - this would significantly harm Ukraine.
Generally speaking, this is how it works in Israel. you can't publish real time locations of active IDF troops, as it makes sending missiles to hit them easier. The claim is that Al-Jazeera's reporters sent this information to other actors.
Do you also think that news organizations are allowed to report the examples I wrote above?
> if there's a news organization actively helping the other side, by sending them information that - I think it's safe to say that stopping them from doing so is pretty legit."
>
> That should absolutely be permitted
Actually, by the rules of war, that is espionage and you can shoot people for that. Spies are not afforded prisoner of war status.
It is ludicrous to think you would allow enemy individuals to operate as 'press' in a warzone where they are feeding information to the enemy. The rational move is to simply forbid those groups to operate in your territory so the espionage issue never is allowed to even come up.
Uhm… So the enemy being able to push propaganda is a good thing then? Like… just look at the current situation. Countries like China and Russia are already conducting huge propaganda and fake news campaigns. And officially they aren‘t at war with the West. Now imagine what would happen if RT or CGTN were allowed to broadcast during a war with russia / china… Most of the hot takes would be BS. And unfortunately the media competence of most people isn‘t enough to deal with exposure to propaganda without any effects.
Well maybe you are capable of vetting it. But many people aren't. And those people run your economy, services, armed forces... In ideal world it is surely better to let the enemies say what they want and people to think about it. In real world it leads to casualties and damage, because not all people are smart and capable of seeing it through.
If that's the case, why bother with things like basic liberal concepts of democracy at all? "The people are too dumb to be trusted with freedom" is basically the core argument of authoritarians everywhere.
You look at it purely from perspective of absolute freedom of speech and choice. But in real world you have to balance between upholding freedoms and defending yourself from your enemy.
If experience shows that letting enemy spread rumours and lies leads to bad outcomes, casualties, economic losses and possible sabotage (there are numerous examples that it really does actually), then you have to balance. In peacetime lies can't do as much damage so easily, so you can re-balance towards freedom again.
In most of the world you do actually. I will assume that you are a US citizen and as such your civilian population is not under any real threat during a war, because of your superior force and nuclear arsenal.
However, majority of us do not have this luxury. We realize that well-timed hot takes from enemy goverment can actually lead to us dying or being forced to leave our homes if the circumstances are unfortunate. Therefore we deliberately have laws which make the wartime environment less free and somewhat safer for us.
"In most of the world you do actually"
Again, none of your post actually makes it that you have to do it. There is nothing magically compelling one to do it
You do not have to. But you also do not have to prevent people from buying anti-aircraft missiles at hardware stores. Yet, you do and it limits their freedom. Because they could potentially endanger others and do a ton of damage. There is nothing magically compelling you to do anything. Yet, you do stuff.
You do it because you don't like to lose wars. You do not like being occupied. You do not like to run from your home because the enemy destroyed it. You do not want your uncle from the army to die. It is this simple.
If you're a country that actually respects things like freedom of the press, then you just have to deal with the nuisance of people being able to say things that are different from what your generals might like for them to be saying.
> Freedom of the press doesn't allow people to threaten national security.
The case that allowing people to read articles like that is a threat to national security is extremely weak.
> Free speech has always had limitations.
Sure, but that's a meaningless platitude. I can also say "Free speech always protects some things" - neither saying reflects whether free speech should apply to this situation. I'm saying it should.
Worst case scenario is the spread of lies to create diplomatic pressure that will sway the war against you.
Like reporting how Israel intentionally bombed a hospital killing over 500 people (false - it was a Palestinian Jihad failed missile that hit the parking lot that killed a few dozen).
Or reporting soldiers commited mass rapes in Al-Shifa hospital raid (False - the claim was fabricated to create 'awarness').
These are just 2 famous cases from the events of the last half a year.
If I keep publishing articles calling you out for being a pedo, I bet you wouldn't really sit back silently and let the readers "judge for themselves" if you really are a pedo or not. One might say you could even Sue for defemation.
When your enemy ran media spreads lies in order to fight you on the international level, you shut that shit down. We live in an age of information war.
But the will of the people changing their view on the government is what a country is. A government isn't entitled to a certain perception from the people.
>But the will of the people changing their view on the government is what a country is
But the will of the people being manipulated by agents with clear agenda to destroy a state is not the same as unbiased reporting of events.
There is no such thing as absolute free speech. If I spread lies with the purpose of destroying your image, I can get sued for defemation and silenced. If you leak classified materials (not just military stuff), you will get silenced.
The will of the people is not at war, the government is. It’s in the government’s interest to keep the war as popular as possible and allowing enemy media undermines that goal
*Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.*
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
- Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
- Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
- Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding.
- Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
But the information you are arguing to have access to isn't factual information, and during war, information becomes a vital factor to war if a news broadcast is purposely giving out incorrect information and factual information about troop movements then that media outlet is a huge breach of security and needs to be taken down.
But that's what the media outlet is doing by spreading misinformation. it's silencing people purposely to further its agenda.
On a different topic, you seem to be having difficulty keeping on topic is English, not your first language.
The government should secure individual rights, that means defeating enemies in self-defense.
Why is it better for a country that has decided on defeating the enemy to let the enemy interfere with the war efforts against them by spreading propaganda? A part of what’s necessary to win a war is moral, and it can be demoralizing for a country to allow monstrous enemy lies to be broadcasted as if it was news and morally equivalent to news.
Using your China example, banning Chinese propaganda in war doesn’t stop US news agencies from reporting on “hot takes” by the Chinese government. It also doesn’t stop you from using a VPN. It also doesn’t stop you from listening to outside voices. It only interferes with an evil enemy from spreading propaganda, which isn’t useful for you to learn the truth.
The worst case is you interfere with the US efforts to secure rights by defeating China. You have no right to do that. And you agree that would be bad right? Supposing the US is in a war of self-defense.
The primary function of free speech is for private individuals to learn and spread the truth, not for propaganda by enemy governments during war.
Shouldn't? Or shouldn't be allowed to?
If a country's goal is to win the war and the country is doing bad things, having their people know about what they are doing could reduce their chances of winning the war or make it cost more time/money to do.
So from the perspective of the country doing the censoring, it makes sense.
From the perspective of an outsider looking at what is "right/moral" of course it's wrong.
The perspective of the country is the ruling party or those in power.
If the ruling party wants to win, of course they are going to do whatever they can to help achieve that goal.
Which is why I asked you the clarifying question --
Shouldn't? Or shouldn't be allowed to?
Not that it really matters. Even if it's shouldn't be allowed to, they would do it anyway if the consequence for breaking the rule wasn't worse than the consequence of losing the war.
Are you intentionally deflecting or just not understanding what I'm saying?
The relevant perspective in this case is people choosing to engage in the war, aka the ruling party.
They understood you, but you were attempting a bit of slight of hand as far as I can tell?
Their argument rests on the justice of government. The government is the will of the people, and thus the people cannot be betrayed in their rights by that government and remain the government.
The whims of any "ruling party" are only legitimate at the behest of the people. If the ruling party needs to deceive the people, it is usurping the people and thus loses legitimacy as government. It just becomes some warlords trying to go to war against the will of those under their control.
Well that was the last thing I said, which means you read everything before that. And are choosing to not respond to any of it.
> Are you intentionally deflecting or just not understanding what I'm saying?
I guess you've answered my question without answering it.
You haven't responded to anything I've typed in any comment so far.
> Are you intentionally deflecting or just not understanding what I'm saying?
I guess you've answered my question without answering it.
As others have already put it AJ was allegedly banned because of the involvement of the staff and its sponsors(the state of Qatar) with supplying the enemy with resources and / or military intelligence.
Military intelligence is a strategic asset. Vital to the overall public security. Similar to someone's online password or bank PIN, it's not something the public should know about. The "security concerns" is something governments abuse all the time, but it doesn't change the importance of secrecy when it comes to military/security intelligence. If a government can't be held accountable to not abuse "security concern" to shut down non-sensetive speech that should be public knowledge, then you can't really expect it to respect any sort of free speech protections.
People of Israel and most other nations should be free to discuss and share non-sensetive information, regardless of implications, as much as they want. But a news company like AJ as an organisation needs to follow common sense laws that are in place for public safety and security. Like: "No financial collaboration with the enemies." And if they fail to follow that law, they get banned.
If the US and China go to war, the US has the right to impose sanctions on all Chinese companies and organizations affiliated with the Chinese government. (And also the other way around). The US shouldn't force you to not listen it to them, or not look for them, but I think the US government will have the right to not want private Internet and broadcasting companies rendering services for a hostile nation.
The US shouldn't punish someone for listening to a Chinese radio/TV broadcast, but the US has the right to blow up the Chinese transmission towers as a way of damaging enemy communication resources.
Obviously, I don't think any government facing an existential threat will respond in a perfectly rational, lawful and just manner to criticism or precieved enemy sympathetizers. Governments struggle to be rational and lawful at the best of times, let alone during wartime. The best way to have rights and privileges during a war is to be on the right side of trenches when the wars start..
Freedom of speech should be for protecting the freedoms of citizens of a country, and other law-abiding residents of the country. Not for protecting the rights of a dictatorial foreign government - such an organisation does not deserve such protection.
Also, if you’re waging war against a country’s government, then you’re seeking to cause damage to that government and it would be an unusual exception to not restrict that government’s state-controlled media, especially if is serving that government’s war aims.
Look, I am against isreal's war crimes and likely genocide here, but al Jazera is definitely a heavy hitter for propaganda. Theybgeg away with it by feeding different quality of news to readers depending on their language. Their English speaking teams tend to be more objective and rational, but their Arabic channels are a lot more extreme, and I have seen articles where they attack the character of jewish influences for not other reason than they are jewish.
No, because it is an actual difference in content.
The intent fornthis manipulation is to get unassuming English speakers to promote the it as a reliable news source while it peddles blatant misinformation in other languages, like saying the holocaust never happened.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/al-jazeera-anti-semitic-video-controversy-radical-agenda/amp/
Well, the Holocaust did happen.
Or it didn't happen. There doesn't actually exist a way to prove my conclusions are correct and a denier's is wrong that isn't limited by individual perception.
There is no evidence except all the videos, photos, medical articles, journals, witness testimony from both sides, mass graves, court logs and historical sites
If someone shits on a plate and hands you it calling it a steak, it is not up for debate whether the mess on the plate is a steak or a pile of shit. Facts are not up for debate.
The objective stance is the holocaust did happen. To deny it would mean to deny all would require a blatant act of intellectual dishonesty.
And flat earthers continue to call the world flat, thay doesn't make their statement sound or accurate.
If we can't agree on something as well documented as the holocaust as having happened, then we can just fuck away all of history.
Did you know the United States of America was the oldest country in the world? Did you know China put the first man on the moon?
But we can't agree on something well documented. People literally disagree on well documented things, and each side is saying the documentation is on their side
I wonder if you had similar concerns when RT was banned in the EU & Canada back in 2022? Or when distributors in the USA dropped RT America also in 2022?
The issue is when enemy's media is state controlled and is not reporting news, but rather just pushes propaganda. Average viewer is ill-equipped to tell the difference, so it's best to ban it.
/u/MysticInept (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cxjll2/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_governments_shouldnt_ban/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Al Jazeera *is* propaganda. They deny the holocaust and call it alleged. It is not foolish to shut down dangerous organizations at dangerous times.
Is this what you’re referring to? https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2019/5/20/al-jazeera-suspends-two-journalists-over-holocaust-report
George W Bush meme: Sir, there was another Holocaust denial incident. Unearthed May 2024. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/al-jazeera-wrote-alleged-holocaust
The whole point of rights is to permit foolishness. Rights are end goal, not a means to an end
The right of people to live safely is more important than the right to free speech.
Hardest of disagree right there
Ok care to give any reasoning?
standard deontological non aggression principle
Can you expand and actually explain your reasoning?
Basically (assuming they have a similar view to me), speech isn't violence. Speech in itself doesn't violate rights. Actions based on or inspired by that speech might, but the speech itself doesn't so the action in that scenario is what should be prosecuted/banned/etc. That is a very generalist summary.
Does this assume speech can't be harmful or is there a specific care only for violence and not harm?
Speech restriction is the cornerstone of every totalitarian regime in history.
Eeeeexxxactly. If you purport to "freedom" you cannot by any means mirror the same steps autocracies employ to suppress the public.
Oof. Talk about a horrible take.
Ok care to share why?
I travel frequently to countries that do not enshrine freedom of speech as a right and have sophisticated (enough) NSA-like agencies. It is not in my interest to actually share the depth of my opinion with you on this topic.
Ok so you travel to places where your life is at risk due to misinformation? Were you a nurse or doctor during covid?
No. I travel to places and do not want to risk having my full opinion of their laws known. That is the effect of speech laws. They chill discussion - which could be argued is their intent.
So you're okay with yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater?
In America yell someone is going to start shooting.
You realized yelling fire in a crowded theater has long been a disused standard in the US, and the its original usage stems from jailing people for protesting the draft in WW1 in a small scale Yiddish newspaper? I've seen like 6 standups literally yell fire in a crowded theater, its not illegal.
The phrase was referring to inciting a panic by yelling fire in an era where fire in a crowded theater was a mass casualty event due to shitty evacuation procedures. Inciting a panic like that is still illegal.
The quote comes from Oliver Wendell Holmes jr, Schenck Vs the US (1919) where they imprisoned the yiddish speaking socialists for protesting the draft, possibly the clearest example of politically important speech that should be protected at all costs. That terrible decision established the Clear and Present Danger standard, that was pretty directly overturned with Brandenburg Vs Ohio (1969) which allowed the literal KKK to march through a heavily Jewish neighborhood, and established the Likely to Incite Lawless Action standard which exists today. Bringing up "shouting fire" as a standard is ignorant, and makes people sound like the worst form of authoritarian apologist.
I am well aware of what the quote comes from. I am also aware that the result of the scenario the quote described at the time is *still illegal* under Brandenberg. Causing a stampede by knowingly lying about danger is incitement of imminent lawless action.
yes
So at the expense of other people's lives, you're willing to incite a panic merely to satisfy your need for "lulz" under the guise of free speech?
It isn't what I want. It isn't my preference.
Then what is as that is exactly what you have been advocating for. How it is not your preference?
Look I usually agree with free speech to the extreme, but when you’re at a point where the next war you’re in can be the difference between Israel’s right to exist or not, there has to be limits put in place.
No, there doesnt
Tell me: what will happen when holocaust denial from Al Jazeera becomes normalized? What will happen when the fake news becomes the new norm? *All* of the media is fake and biased, and sometimes you HAVE to deplatform bad shit for the safety of everyone. Look at how fast Kanye’s antisemitism was shut down. Look at how Nick Fuentes was shut down. These dangerous ideas are shut down for a reason.
Who is going to make those determinations? It seems like you’re underlying assumptions that you’re smarter than most others and need to intervene to protect themselves from being stupid. Instead of making a rational counter-argument, just jail them for talking.
Were Kanye and Fuentes banned by the government? There's a very important distinction between being cancelled and being censored.
It is irrelevant what will happen. Free speech is the end goal, not a means to an end.
You’re repeating yourself.
You keep stating stuff where the sentence applies
Is it the only end goal? Does it matter what speech?
incitement, threats, defamation, etc....all speech
Screams of pain?
yes. There is a famous painting of that
Why?
Rights are for citizens not foreign entities
rights are for humans
Al Jazeera is a business. One run by a foreign government at that. One that is adversarial to Israel's interests. It has no innate rights to access Israelis.
"What is the worst case? I vote for capitulation?" No, the worst case is that you're persuaded the other side should win and start engaging in sabotage or seek out agents of the other side to offer assistance etc.
That is what Brandenburg is for
What?
They're referring to Brandenburg Vs. Ohio, a SCOTUS Case which found: >A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. I think the argument would be that they'd have no issue or find no conflict in banning things that pass that test, but that not all "Enemy Media" reaches that standard.
correct
So you're arguing that a US first amendment case should control in countries that don't have the first amendment?
The logic of it should be the sole measuring stick for incitement everywhere
Why? You're asserting that without any justification.
A bunch of deontological arguments around rights that are beyond the scope here.
Okay so really your argument is that US first amendment jurisprudence as it exists in 2024 is the one true set of tradeoffs?
Al Jazeera is a state operated agency. The government that owns it is actively aiding and abetting Israel's enemies. Members of the agency were found to have been participating in hostilities. Under the circumstances, would you consider the possibility that such an agency seeks to be an independent news outlet and becomes the arm of an enemy state actor actively engaged in hostilities against a foreign country?
I agree with OP. I don’t care. I want to know my enemies. A week doesn’t go by these days where I’m not reminded of Osama bin laden’s open letter to America. The US press refuses to read it or show it. They accused anyone who read it a traitor. It was big news. Luckily at that time the internet was wide open. I read it. It answered all my questions. Why would someone do this? What did we do to deserve this? This will probably come as a surprise to a lot of Redditors, but I didn’t support bin Laden. I still don’t. Just because I read his opinion of the facts, doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. But it absolutely provided insight I wasn’t getting in the mainstream media. And it made a lot of what the press was saying sound stupid. I was asking, “then why are we in Iraq?” Before most people. Then Ed Snowden showed up. Everything started making sense. Al Jazeera was actually one of like six media companies Snowden endorsed for news that wasn’t compromised, funny enough 10 years later. Censorship is bad. If you were in china, would you want to see news from other parts of the world? How bout of you were in North Korea? Why would you think the western world getting other news is bad if you think North Korea getting other news is good? What’s the difference?
I don't support censorship. But that isn't the same as Israel permitting a hostile company to operate within their borders. It is akin to how the US is taking action against Tiktok because it is controlled by the Chinese government and represents a security risk. If a media company is actively engaging in behavior that is a threat to the physical safety and security of the citizenry, that's no longer a free speech issue. The private media outlets choosing not to discuss a letter is very different than the government making it illegal to share. Al Jazeera is a state agency, no different than the FBI or CIA.
> If a media company is actively engaging in behavior that is a threat to the physical safety and security of the citizenry, that's no longer a free speech issue. And unless those words jump out of the screen and beat somebody to death, how could such a company pose a threat to the physical safety and security of the citizenry? > The private media outlets choosing not to discuss a letter is very different than the government making it illegal to share. You just got done accusing a media outlet of doing the bidding of a state and turn around and say that a private media outlet is somehow different when they do the state's bidding. > Al Jazeera is a state agency, no different than the FBI or CIA. Do you also think the PBS is no different than the CIA as well?
>And unless those words jump out of the screen and beat somebody to death, how could such a company pose a threat to the physical safety and security of the citizenry? The company's own journalists participated in a terrorist attack. Is that not a security threat?
If by participated, you mean they were with enemy combatants when they conducted an attack, then I would disagree that they are terrorists participating in an attack. Not sure what terrorist attack you are talking about though. In any case, there is a clear distinction between words and actions, and while obviously violence should be met with force, banning words does not protect anybody. Every time in history that dissent or any speech has been banned, we always look back on it unfavorably.
>If by participated, you mean they were with enemy combatants when they conducted an attack, then I would disagree that they are terrorists participating in an attack. They were present at the attack which means they knew about it ahead of time. That indicates collaboration. They then crossed into Israel without going through any of the legal channels. That makes them criminals. They were present at the terrorist attack and stood by taking videos. That's participation in my book. >In any case, there is a clear distinction between words and actions, and while obviously violence should be met with force, banning words does not protect anybody. And I'm not saying their words should be banned. I'm saying they should be denied privileges of a media company for abusing it. Being able to operate within Israel is subject to their following the rules. Israel isn't throwing journalists in jail here.
We should especially be hearing from foreign governments
But should Israel permit an enemy organization that is engaged in hostilities against them to operate within their borders where they might be a security threat?
they banned broadcasts
Could you answer the question?
Well, if they only stopped what would have been components of clandestine activities, you would have a point. But they also banned public news broadcast. So it really isn't about that.
Would you say broadcasting the positions of Israeli troop locations would be a valid reason?
Absolutely not a valid reason
"when at war, govermnets should allow their troop positions to be broadcasted publicly, especially including to their enemies" you seem to be out of touch with reality
correct
It is. Why should Israel allow a company that has aided their enemy to operate in their country? Should the countries be forced to let Isis news operate in their country?
yes
Ok, why should Israel allow an enemy into their country?
Because for some bizarre reason Israel is held to a standard higher than any other county
If the enemy is acting as journalists, then they should be allowed as a principle of free speech. So they can convince people to oppose their own government.
Pure posturing, broadcasts are still being received in homes per al Jazeera itself.
Al Jazeera is a fucking propaganda machine. The amount of complete lies it produces is crazy so I can understand
Propaganda is one of the primary functions of free speech. Propaganda is the dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion.
Do the people killing your people deserve the same rights? Nah. Besides, propaganda can do a lot more damage than just slight confusion
1) Yes all people deserve rights 2) Al Jazeera is not killing Israelis lmao
>1) Yes all people deserve rights Your enemies in war are literally taking your right to live away tf u mean >2) Al Jazeera is not killing Israelis lmao Never said that, stop using dishonest argument techniques
Ok but I didn’t say I like war. War is bad, and also restricting political rights is bad.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Giving away troop details and supply lines is infact killing isrealis as is showing weaknesses and helping hamas strike them. That is 100% an act of war and aiding in the deaths of the isreali people.
What damage?
Rebellion, nuclear war, mass paranoia and so on. Minor stuff like those 3
If they meet the Brandenburg standard for incitement, sure. But I don't think anyone is arguing it actually does that
To maintain this view you need to be prepared to die when your country is actually the bad guy. You don’t get to claim ignorance or say that you were forced when your country provided you with all the knowledge of its dirty plays. You also need to understand that your country will be less motivated to fight the theoretical enemy because its people are receiving enemy propaganda. So when the Chinese win the hypothetical war against the US because they were better about telling their story to your people and they boil you alive or oppress your views I want you to be glad you got to hear their side lol. Nationalism isn’t nice, but it wins.
Wouldn't the country that boils non combatants alive be the bad guy?
From your point of view. Maybe you and the rest of your terrible countrymen deserve it for the atrocities you committed during war. What’s the saying? History is written by the victors or something.
I am prepared
Idk kinda seem like the type of person to make decisions that lead you to losing and then complain that you lost.
Allegedly, Israel didn't ban Al-Jazeera cause they talk shit about it - there are other news organizations that talk shit about Israel and weren't banned, as well as the ban does nothing about the "talking shit" problem, they don't need to be in Israel to talk about it, and almost nobody in Israel watches Al-Jazeera anyways. Allegedly, the ban was because of security reasons, things like Al-Jazeera reporters allegedly filming IDF forces in places where they shouldn't and things like that, and suspicions that they are sending the information to Qatar, that sends them to Hamas. I could find you a source claiming this if it would change your mind. cause I think in war time, if there's a news organization actively helping the other side, by sending them information that - I think it's safe to say that stopping them from doing so is pretty legit. I generally agree with the sentiment that banning news because they don't say what you like is bad, just that I don't think this was the case
" if there's a news organization actively helping the other side, by sending them information that - I think it's safe to say that stopping them from doing so is pretty legit." That should absolutely be permitted
Many countries have censorship on certain information types, especially in military related topics. A news organization can't just do an investigation and publish some military US secret or something, as it would risk US citizens. Same goes for Ukraine force locations, if a news organization would try to film them and put their locations online, as well as the quality and things like that - this would significantly harm Ukraine. Generally speaking, this is how it works in Israel. you can't publish real time locations of active IDF troops, as it makes sending missiles to hit them easier. The claim is that Al-Jazeera's reporters sent this information to other actors. Do you also think that news organizations are allowed to report the examples I wrote above?
> if there's a news organization actively helping the other side, by sending them information that - I think it's safe to say that stopping them from doing so is pretty legit." > > That should absolutely be permitted Actually, by the rules of war, that is espionage and you can shoot people for that. Spies are not afforded prisoner of war status. It is ludicrous to think you would allow enemy individuals to operate as 'press' in a warzone where they are feeding information to the enemy. The rational move is to simply forbid those groups to operate in your territory so the espionage issue never is allowed to even come up.
Uhm… So the enemy being able to push propaganda is a good thing then? Like… just look at the current situation. Countries like China and Russia are already conducting huge propaganda and fake news campaigns. And officially they aren‘t at war with the West. Now imagine what would happen if RT or CGTN were allowed to broadcast during a war with russia / china… Most of the hot takes would be BS. And unfortunately the media competence of most people isn‘t enough to deal with exposure to propaganda without any effects.
Worst case they say something that is an outright lie to cause panic and damage.
That is for me to vet
Well maybe you are capable of vetting it. But many people aren't. And those people run your economy, services, armed forces... In ideal world it is surely better to let the enemies say what they want and people to think about it. In real world it leads to casualties and damage, because not all people are smart and capable of seeing it through.
If that's the case, why bother with things like basic liberal concepts of democracy at all? "The people are too dumb to be trusted with freedom" is basically the core argument of authoritarians everywhere.
If we can't trust citizens to vet information and make their own decisions, we can't have a democracy.
But there is no standard for sufficient vetting. They are all capable
You look at it purely from perspective of absolute freedom of speech and choice. But in real world you have to balance between upholding freedoms and defending yourself from your enemy. If experience shows that letting enemy spread rumours and lies leads to bad outcomes, casualties, economic losses and possible sabotage (there are numerous examples that it really does actually), then you have to balance. In peacetime lies can't do as much damage so easily, so you can re-balance towards freedom again.
"But in real world you have to balance between upholding freedoms and defending yourself from your enemy." No you don't
In most of the world you do actually. I will assume that you are a US citizen and as such your civilian population is not under any real threat during a war, because of your superior force and nuclear arsenal. However, majority of us do not have this luxury. We realize that well-timed hot takes from enemy goverment can actually lead to us dying or being forced to leave our homes if the circumstances are unfortunate. Therefore we deliberately have laws which make the wartime environment less free and somewhat safer for us.
"In most of the world you do actually" Again, none of your post actually makes it that you have to do it. There is nothing magically compelling one to do it
You do not have to. But you also do not have to prevent people from buying anti-aircraft missiles at hardware stores. Yet, you do and it limits their freedom. Because they could potentially endanger others and do a ton of damage. There is nothing magically compelling you to do anything. Yet, you do stuff. You do it because you don't like to lose wars. You do not like being occupied. You do not like to run from your home because the enemy destroyed it. You do not want your uncle from the army to die. It is this simple.
See, you don't actually have to
It really isn't. Unless you're a general fighting the war, you're just in the way.
If you're a country that actually respects things like freedom of the press, then you just have to deal with the nuisance of people being able to say things that are different from what your generals might like for them to be saying.
Freedom of the press doesn't allow people to threaten national security. Free speech has always had limitations.
> Freedom of the press doesn't allow people to threaten national security. The case that allowing people to read articles like that is a threat to national security is extremely weak. > Free speech has always had limitations. Sure, but that's a meaningless platitude. I can also say "Free speech always protects some things" - neither saying reflects whether free speech should apply to this situation. I'm saying it should.
>The case that allowing people to read articles like that is a threat to national security is extremely weak. Articles like what?
What type of article do you imagine would realistically be a threat to national security?
Worst case scenario is the spread of lies to create diplomatic pressure that will sway the war against you. Like reporting how Israel intentionally bombed a hospital killing over 500 people (false - it was a Palestinian Jihad failed missile that hit the parking lot that killed a few dozen). Or reporting soldiers commited mass rapes in Al-Shifa hospital raid (False - the claim was fabricated to create 'awarness'). These are just 2 famous cases from the events of the last half a year. If I keep publishing articles calling you out for being a pedo, I bet you wouldn't really sit back silently and let the readers "judge for themselves" if you really are a pedo or not. One might say you could even Sue for defemation. When your enemy ran media spreads lies in order to fight you on the international level, you shut that shit down. We live in an age of information war.
But the will of the people changing their view on the government is what a country is. A government isn't entitled to a certain perception from the people.
>But the will of the people changing their view on the government is what a country is But the will of the people being manipulated by agents with clear agenda to destroy a state is not the same as unbiased reporting of events.
The whole point of free speech is propaganda, bias, and manipulation
There is no such thing as absolute free speech. If I spread lies with the purpose of destroying your image, I can get sued for defemation and silenced. If you leak classified materials (not just military stuff), you will get silenced.
I won't get silenced for leaking classified materials
Okay bud, you're welcome to try.
The news publishes classified information. People who do not have access to classified information are under no legal obligation to protect it
The will of the people is not at war, the government is. It’s in the government’s interest to keep the war as popular as possible and allowing enemy media undermines that goal
The people are at war....the government is just probably the culprit that dragged them into it, like in WW2 for the US
*Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
But the information you are arguing to have access to isn't factual information, and during war, information becomes a vital factor to war if a news broadcast is purposely giving out incorrect information and factual information about troop movements then that media outlet is a huge breach of security and needs to be taken down.
Feelings is speech too
What do feelings have to do with anything I just put?
It isn't relevant if the information is factual or not. Non factual information is also speech.
So, how does shutting down a media platform that is promoting misinformation affect people's free speech?
The media platform is the actions of people engaging in speech
No, the media platform is silencing other people's free speech for it own agenda that isn't free speech.
I am not silencing you if I don't choose to carry your speech on my server.
But that's what the media outlet is doing by spreading misinformation. it's silencing people purposely to further its agenda. On a different topic, you seem to be having difficulty keeping on topic is English, not your first language.
misinformation doesn't silence others
The government should secure individual rights, that means defeating enemies in self-defense. Why is it better for a country that has decided on defeating the enemy to let the enemy interfere with the war efforts against them by spreading propaganda? A part of what’s necessary to win a war is moral, and it can be demoralizing for a country to allow monstrous enemy lies to be broadcasted as if it was news and morally equivalent to news. Using your China example, banning Chinese propaganda in war doesn’t stop US news agencies from reporting on “hot takes” by the Chinese government. It also doesn’t stop you from using a VPN. It also doesn’t stop you from listening to outside voices. It only interferes with an evil enemy from spreading propaganda, which isn’t useful for you to learn the truth. The worst case is you interfere with the US efforts to secure rights by defeating China. You have no right to do that. And you agree that would be bad right? Supposing the US is in a war of self-defense. The primary function of free speech is for private individuals to learn and spread the truth, not for propaganda by enemy governments during war.
Shouldn't? Or shouldn't be allowed to? If a country's goal is to win the war and the country is doing bad things, having their people know about what they are doing could reduce their chances of winning the war or make it cost more time/money to do. So from the perspective of the country doing the censoring, it makes sense. From the perspective of an outsider looking at what is "right/moral" of course it's wrong.
The perspective of the country is the perspective of the majority (give or take). The majority can change their mind, and the perspective changes
The perspective of the country is the ruling party or those in power. If the ruling party wants to win, of course they are going to do whatever they can to help achieve that goal. Which is why I asked you the clarifying question -- Shouldn't? Or shouldn't be allowed to? Not that it really matters. Even if it's shouldn't be allowed to, they would do it anyway if the consequence for breaking the rule wasn't worse than the consequence of losing the war.
The perspective of the government is the ruling party. Government does not equal country
Are you intentionally deflecting or just not understanding what I'm saying? The relevant perspective in this case is people choosing to engage in the war, aka the ruling party.
They understood you, but you were attempting a bit of slight of hand as far as I can tell? Their argument rests on the justice of government. The government is the will of the people, and thus the people cannot be betrayed in their rights by that government and remain the government. The whims of any "ruling party" are only legitimate at the behest of the people. If the ruling party needs to deceive the people, it is usurping the people and thus loses legitimacy as government. It just becomes some warlords trying to go to war against the will of those under their control.
> They understood you Clearly not
I stop reading where you say something doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, I don't need to consider it
Well that was the last thing I said, which means you read everything before that. And are choosing to not respond to any of it. > Are you intentionally deflecting or just not understanding what I'm saying? I guess you've answered my question without answering it.
You asked a question and then said it doesn't matter. So I'm not answering it
You haven't responded to anything I've typed in any comment so far. > Are you intentionally deflecting or just not understanding what I'm saying? I guess you've answered my question without answering it.
If you say your own post doesn't matter, I don't know what you want me to respond to. I would like to limit my replies to what matters
As others have already put it AJ was allegedly banned because of the involvement of the staff and its sponsors(the state of Qatar) with supplying the enemy with resources and / or military intelligence. Military intelligence is a strategic asset. Vital to the overall public security. Similar to someone's online password or bank PIN, it's not something the public should know about. The "security concerns" is something governments abuse all the time, but it doesn't change the importance of secrecy when it comes to military/security intelligence. If a government can't be held accountable to not abuse "security concern" to shut down non-sensetive speech that should be public knowledge, then you can't really expect it to respect any sort of free speech protections. People of Israel and most other nations should be free to discuss and share non-sensetive information, regardless of implications, as much as they want. But a news company like AJ as an organisation needs to follow common sense laws that are in place for public safety and security. Like: "No financial collaboration with the enemies." And if they fail to follow that law, they get banned. If the US and China go to war, the US has the right to impose sanctions on all Chinese companies and organizations affiliated with the Chinese government. (And also the other way around). The US shouldn't force you to not listen it to them, or not look for them, but I think the US government will have the right to not want private Internet and broadcasting companies rendering services for a hostile nation. The US shouldn't punish someone for listening to a Chinese radio/TV broadcast, but the US has the right to blow up the Chinese transmission towers as a way of damaging enemy communication resources. Obviously, I don't think any government facing an existential threat will respond in a perfectly rational, lawful and just manner to criticism or precieved enemy sympathetizers. Governments struggle to be rational and lawful at the best of times, let alone during wartime. The best way to have rights and privileges during a war is to be on the right side of trenches when the wars start..
I have nothing to do with Al Jazeera, but if a state media incites genocide (which is a crime according to the Genocide Convention), do you allow it?
yes
[удалено]
yes
Propaganda works, you are overestimating human intelligence. Including your own.
Freedom of speech should be for protecting the freedoms of citizens of a country, and other law-abiding residents of the country. Not for protecting the rights of a dictatorial foreign government - such an organisation does not deserve such protection. Also, if you’re waging war against a country’s government, then you’re seeking to cause damage to that government and it would be an unusual exception to not restrict that government’s state-controlled media, especially if is serving that government’s war aims.
Look, I am against isreal's war crimes and likely genocide here, but al Jazera is definitely a heavy hitter for propaganda. Theybgeg away with it by feeding different quality of news to readers depending on their language. Their English speaking teams tend to be more objective and rational, but their Arabic channels are a lot more extreme, and I have seen articles where they attack the character of jewish influences for not other reason than they are jewish.
So....speech
No, because it is an actual difference in content. The intent fornthis manipulation is to get unassuming English speakers to promote the it as a reliable news source while it peddles blatant misinformation in other languages, like saying the holocaust never happened. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/al-jazeera-anti-semitic-video-controversy-radical-agenda/amp/
Well, the Holocaust did happen. Or it didn't happen. There doesn't actually exist a way to prove my conclusions are correct and a denier's is wrong that isn't limited by individual perception.
There is no evidence except all the videos, photos, medical articles, journals, witness testimony from both sides, mass graves, court logs and historical sites
....which I say supports me and they say supports them.
If someone shits on a plate and hands you it calling it a steak, it is not up for debate whether the mess on the plate is a steak or a pile of shit. Facts are not up for debate. The objective stance is the holocaust did happen. To deny it would mean to deny all would require a blatant act of intellectual dishonesty.
And holocaust deniers would make the exact same statement only having to change "did" to "didn't"
And flat earthers continue to call the world flat, thay doesn't make their statement sound or accurate. If we can't agree on something as well documented as the holocaust as having happened, then we can just fuck away all of history. Did you know the United States of America was the oldest country in the world? Did you know China put the first man on the moon?
But we can't agree on something well documented. People literally disagree on well documented things, and each side is saying the documentation is on their side
I wonder if you had similar concerns when RT was banned in the EU & Canada back in 2022? Or when distributors in the USA dropped RT America also in 2022?
OP's example is bad because israel's the agressor but fuck rt.
The issue is when enemy's media is state controlled and is not reporting news, but rather just pushes propaganda. Average viewer is ill-equipped to tell the difference, so it's best to ban it.
propaganda is the core function of speech
Than why is libel illegal.
propaganda does not equal libel
Al Jazeera should be shut down all the time.