Policy of restricting people from expressing themselves freely has been widely implemented by the developing countries of the world but has USA begun walking on that path?
I don't see any indication of that, but then I may have a different idea of what "expressing themselves freely" means than you do.
By expressing themselves freely I mean expressing one's opinion about certain issues, people, gov't, countries and media etc., using various means like words, arts, peaceful processions and vlogs etc., without worrying about government encroaching upon personal liberties and rights. Eg. If a citizen of China speaks against the actions of government there is a possibility of that person ending in a confinement. In India, where goons hired by a person in power will make you think twice before visiting a place of your interest if you have expressed any opinion against that person.
And not only government the society itself starts becoming intolerable to freedom of expression. Eg. In India and Bangladesh people have been killed for speaking against cruel practices of religion and unfair treatment of women.
Sadly, the Obama Administration abuses the Espionage Act on whistle blowers who leak information to journalists. More whistle blowers and journalists have received unreasonable lengthy prison sentences under the present Adm., then any Adm. before. For many years now, they can end up committing suicide with two bullets in the back of their head or back, stuff like that.
According to investigative reporters, first-hand witnesses and victims of the rigged system, we have / have had many political prisoners who have never been granted Due Process after spending years in prison, or serving life sentences. That would mean that due process is dead within a lawless government.
It's that "peaceful procession" that bothers me. When a "procession" deteriorates into violence against property is it OK? When the procession intentionally interferes with or causes disruption to others lives is it OK? When it takes over public or private lands?
I hope to see these activities ended with some old fashioned common sense, and if that means we're ending "free speech", then maybe we are or should be.
So what if a person speaks one's mind or an online news site publishes an article against the government ? Will your reply be any different ?
I think you are aware from keywords you used in your title and OP. The US gov't recently announced they want to shut down sites they say are fake news. Some of them are, but they are also targeting the Tea Party, Infowars, Breitbart, the Drudge Report, which are considered conservative / libertarian news outlets.
The real fake news outlets are the corporate / government run mainstream propaganda dispersers globally. Of which, only a minority of Americans trust.
As you know, these days mainstream news outlets are carrying out a ferocious attack against “fake news.”
They are composing lists of sites that disseminate “fake news.”
Of course, this is their attempt to find scapegoats for their own failure to predict the winner of the presidential election—the winner they supported with every ounce of strength they could muster, Hillary Clinton—who lost.
Why did Hillary lose? Because, they say, web sites published and spread negative “fake news” about her. And these sites actually got their fake news from, wait for it, Russia. That’s right. Russia.
So…mainstream outlets are floating an absurd and laughable conspiracy theory.
The mainstream emperor has no clothes, and everyone can see it.
* https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016 … s-in-2001/
All that Politically Correct crap is "curtailing freedom of speech".
Hillary Clinton – the woman who voted for a war that was sold on a diet of fake news – a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people – is now lecturing Americans about fake news putting “lives at risk”.
“The epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year – it’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real world consequences,” said Clinton during a speech on Thursday for retiring Nevada Senator Harry Reid.
“Lives are at risk — lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities,” she added.
Hillary went on to say that it was imperative for the public and private sector to take action against fake news “to protect innocent lives”.
Such concern for “innocent lives” wasn’t apparent when Hillary supported the fake news narrative that led to the slaughter in Iraq, a war that ended hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
A war based on the completely fake contrived narrative, based on fake whistleblowers, and fake intelligence, that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
Nor was Hillary’s sympathy for innocent lives evident when she helped push the fake news that jihadist rebels in Syria and Libya were actually “moderate,” in order to send them weapons, a narrative and a conflict that led to hundreds of thousands more dead and displaced people, in addition to a wrecked continent and the rise of ISIS.
Hillary’s sudden worry over fake news putting lives at risk was also noticeably absent back in September 2012, when she advanced the fake news story that a YouTube video was to blame for the attack on Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other innocent people.
Hillary Clinton is the queen of fake news. When she’s not pushing fake news to start wars that really do put lives at risk, she’s faking news about being under Bosnian sniper fire in order to look tough.
Being lectured by Hillary Clinton about fake news is like being lectured by Ted Bundy about not raping and killing women.
It’s a joke, but a particularly sick joke given that Hillary’s role in pushing fake news has actually led to the deaths of countless innocent people.
Paul Joseph Watson
* http://www.infowars.com/hillary-clinton … fake-news/
Glad that you see HC this way. I am actually amazed by the significance given to her even after her loss. Thanks for the links in your reply I am aware of Infowars but not a frequent viewer of the site and about the other link, it made me curious to read the book which made those claims about AIDS, hoping to find it online.
But is there any sign that curtailing of freedom of speech will cease when Trump takes the position? I doubt.
Making up nonsense to make yourself feel better, and declaring it to be true, certainly isn't on the decline.
You are correct. I believe we are experiencing an all out tyranny attempt to put the old war-hawk battle-ax in the WH. The devil roars like a lion but doesn't have any teeth in this battle, in Jesus Name!
“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
Not just lying she also good at buttering people, i came across a video where she is being interviewed by a couple of black people, not at all trying to be racist, when one asks her about one thing she always carries in her purse and she replies " Hot sauce, hot sauce is something you will always find in my purse" now i don't know why, but from the interviewers reaction i felt as if she is trying to butter the black community for their votes.
I hope someday that hillary gets the help that she needs.
by crankalicious 11 months ago
Is this something Congress should do?And what exactly is fake news? While President Trump may complain about "fake" news, he continues to make demonstrably false statements at a rate that far exceeds anything in the "fake" news. In fact, those false statement are all tallied...
by JOC 4 months ago
Ohio State recently conducted a story about the possible impact targeted fake news stories might have had on the election. Thoughts?http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180507/o … mp-in-2016
by Timothy Arends 5 months ago
It’s always worrying when an Internet property you participate in is bought out by another entity, and the acquisition of hubpages is no exception. In the past, I have seen the philosophy and concept of a community I participated in completely changed when it was bought out. The...
by irachx 3 weeks ago
Do we really have freedom of speech?
by Mahsa S 2 years ago
Do We Really Have Freedom of Speech in the U.S?Do we really have freedom of speech here in the U.S? What should we change about it? How can we stand up for this right?
by John Wilson 21 months ago
A new agency - Global Engagement Center’s - job's to combat FAKE NEWS around the world. Good /bad?The legislation to combat "fake" news is in the new The National Defense Authorization Act of 2017. This is for an agency that is supposed to combat the type of thing that we saw in the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|