That is nothing like china.
Awaits for the death van to come around, due to somethign youve done online.
Or utter removal of fredom of speech etc.
It is nothing like china and never will be.
Courts forcing ISPs to block anything now
- Thread starter One
- Start date
That is nothing like china.
Awaits for the death van to come around, due to somethign youve done online.
Or utter removal of fredom of speech etc.
It is nothing like china and never will be.
I'm having a hard time finding where I said that, could you help a brotha out and show me? Thanks in advance.
Look at what you quoted.
I'm having a hard time finding where I said that, could you help a brotha out and show me? Thanks in advance.
If you quote someone, i can only assume, you are replying to that point. Otherwise, don't quote it. Your fault, not mine,
This being the week in which Cameron threatened to gag the press if they released any more Snowden leaks?
Yeah, freedom of speech is alive and well, and not being threatened at all!
Lol, thats not what happened is it.
He asked them to be responsible with the info leaked, not stop all leaking.
There was a threat, most definitely, to gag them.
He said "it would be difficult not to take action if they don't act responsibly". Meaning "if they don't comply".
Meaning if they don't act responsibly. Doesn't say anything about not leaking anything.
Of course they have to com ply or face court. Thats not the same as you suggest, it s in no shape or form a total gag, he's asked them to act responsibly.
Yeah but who defines 'responsibly'? Cameron, of course
Not you, not me, but Cameron and his buddies in GCHQ.What he's basically saying, however you spin it, is that if they publish material he doesn't want them to, he will - as he said himself - be likely to take action.
Again, spin it how you want, but that's a threat, plain as day. A threat of a gag, or a threat of punishment.
No, it is not a gag in the sense you mean. They are not blocking all leaks, again like you suggest. Nothing along those lines has been said.
Do you really think papers should be able to print whatever they want, or leakers to leak whatever they want without sanitising certain things.
Do you really think papers should be able to print whatever they want, or leakers to leak whatever they want without sanitising certain things.
No, and that's a straw man anyhow. The leaks they have already published have been 'sanitised' as you call it. Names, etc, removed.
But GCHQ are embarrassed that we now know much of what they've been up to. And so they have complained that it has caused 'untold damage'. And Cameron duly says they (the papers) are being irresponsible, crossing a line, helping the terrorists, and not being Good Little Patriots.
So he wants to stop future leaks of Snowdon sourced information. Santised or otherwise.
He, and GCHQ, do not want us to find out what they get up to. Isn't this obvious?
Where has he said any of that, and no a lot of the stuff was not sanitised either.
You applying what you think as fact, when you have nothing to back it up.
Now that is a strawman, no one wnats to air their dirty underware. That doesnt mean your assumptions are right.
You applying what you think as fact, when you have nothing to back it up.
Now that is a strawman, no one wnats to air their dirty underware. That doesnt mean your assumptions are right.
What do you mean by sanitised then? I promise you they won't have named US or UK operatives or anything like that. Or someone would be in for some serious waterboarding lol.
Or do you in fact mean censored? Classified info entirely removed? Pretty much all of those docs were classified, so that's kind of a moot point.
Here you go then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24710826
This is him telling the Guardian in no uncertain terms that they don't like what they've done, and they want them to stop publishing info from Snowdon.
Could it be any more plain? You just don't want to put 2+2 together.
Are you saying an injunction against publishing more Snowdon info is *not* a gagging order? Seems like one to me!
Not in the way you keep saying, it is not a 100% gaging order. They can still leak stuff, they can even leak snowdon stuff. But they have to do it responsably.
Now lets see what he actually says, not one abstract line.
Last edited:
Just LOL.
But for ****s and giggles, tell us the difference between leaking Snowdon info in a 'socially responsible' manner, and the way the Guardian has been doing it until now?
For **** and giggle, support your opinion.
And not with a one line quote, look at what has actually been said.
No where has they said they cant leak, it just has to be in a socialy responsable way.
One thing they seemed to dislikw was guardian published stuff then destroyed orginal material. That wasnt just snowden stuff, theres been many leaks after snowden, around the subjects that some snowden files hinted at.
And not with a one line quote, look at what has actually been said.
No where has they said they cant leak, it just has to be in a socialy responsable way.
One thing they seemed to dislikw was guardian published stuff then destroyed orginal material. That wasnt just snowden stuff, theres been many leaks after snowden, around the subjects that some snowden files hinted at.
Last edited: