Free speech. [Archive] - Page 2

Banditbandit

21st August 2018, 15:43

Except for labelling it a 'piece of shit'.

I'm intrigued to know your reasoning.

Let me see .. These people claim the Celts arrived here about 3,500 years ago - must be about 1,500 BCE - and came from Wales ..

Given that the Celts arrived in the UK area in two waves - the Goidelic-speaking Celts between 2000 BCE and 1200 BCE approximately 4,000 to 3,200 years ago .. and the Brythonic-speaking Celts sometime in the period 500 BCE to 400 BCE - about 2,400 to 2,500 years ago ..

It can only have been the Goidelic speaking Celts .. (they must have left before the Brythonic Celts arrived in the UK) ... who didn't bother to stop in Wales, but sailed south in the Atlantic - around Cape Horn, leaving no trace, before crossing the Southern Ocean to New Zealand ....

All in coracle boats ... yeah - really likely

Here's a Celtic boat from 1CE .. really seaworthy for a trip from the UK to here .. that's only 2,000 years old - not 3,500 years old ..

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/FloatingCurraghBedford.JPG

Also, Goidelic Celts were from Ireland and parts of Scotland - Welsh Celts are Brythonic - and only settled there about 2,500 years ago - and therefore cannot be the ones found n Northland, who apparently were here 3,500 years ago.

a claim that the Polynesian demi-god was an historical figure who not only discovered New Zealand but was captain of a fleet of six ships from Egypt

Egypt ??? What has Egypt got to do with it?

Professor Richard Holdaway and Professor Lisa Matisoo-Smith. Both have done work that suggests rats may have arrived here earlier than first settlement – and that almost certainly arrived with people.

On the face of it their findings could give credence to the idea of pre-Māori settlement in New Zealand. Neither of them were interviewed in the documentaries and both are scathing of the ideas being promoted in them.

Lisa Matisoo Smith told Mediawatch the documentaries had misused her data. "I have communicated with these people and have pointed out the errors in their interpretations but they do not want to hear the truth."

Exactly .. early visits or even occupation - sure - early Polynesian settlers ... some Maori oral histories certainly show people here before Kupe, and before Maui ... A small group of say 50 people coming on a canoe will leave bugger all archaeological evidence - especially if hey go home again - and even if we knew where to look for it.

He said his research, which can be found on open source online journals, suggests that people, probably of the Lapita culture, visited New Zealand a few hundred years before the beginning of settlement.

Banditbandit

21st August 2018, 15:48

So yeah - piece of shit ..

Katman

21st August 2018, 15:55

Here's a Celtic boat from 1CE .. really seaworthy for a trip from the UK to here ..

Are you suggesting that the Celts didn't have seaworthy boats back then?

Banditbandit

21st August 2018, 16:39

Are you suggesting that the Celts didn't have seaworthy boats back then?

Yes - that is exactly what is suggested ... maybe seaworthy - but not good enough to sail here - especially across the Southern Ocean .

Here's one built following an old one that was found from 3,500 years ago

https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02217/boaat_2217818b.jpg

Do you seriously think anyone could sail from the UK to here in one of these?

http://i.imgur.com/ui5WMYh.jpg

If you think they had boats that could get here - show me ..

However, the boats are not the only thing - the historical timing is also out ..

oldrider

21st August 2018, 17:25

Maybe New Zealand was over there then - tectonically speaking? - Who really knows? :rolleyes:

Katman

21st August 2018, 19:29

So yeah - piece of shit ..

Do you have any theory on the stone structures in Waipoua Forest?

Drew

21st August 2018, 20:21

Do you have any theory on the stone structures in Waipoua Forest?

Why do we need to?

This thread is about free speech. You started it. I assume that the program being aired twice but having been taken down from online viewing, is an infringement of free speech.

It isn't. It was removed because the classification was incorrect. But it got aired.

Katman

21st August 2018, 20:26

It was removed because the classification was incorrect.

Can you tell me which category it's been moved to then?

Katman

21st August 2018, 20:28

It's the same reason that the documentary 'Poisoning Paradise' hasn't been aired on TV.

Some people don't want other people talking about it.

Woodman

21st August 2018, 20:34

Can you tell me which category it's been moved to then?

It should be put with that equally as stupid anti 1080 "documentary" that the hunters can't fathom why it hasn't been aired on the tele.

TheDemonLord

22nd August 2018, 01:10

Celts in NZ before the Maoris?

If that's true - where are all the Gingers?

We've been trying to breed them out in the UK for the better part of 2,000 years - and yet the fuckers still keep popping up with their red hair and no souls.

For a more serious comment - the Celts weren't known for being expert seafairers - not compared to the Vikings or Saxons - Bandit correctly points out that the limit of their vessels was the littorals - with some being just good enough to go from Ireland to the UK.

Graystone

22nd August 2018, 01:43

It's the same reason that the documentary 'Poisoning Paradise' hasn't been aired on TV.

Some people don't want other people talking about it.

NZ needs to get over itself with this clean green paradise shit, it's just as bad (and wrong) as the US#1 nationalism malarkey.

Drew

22nd August 2018, 06:38

It's the same reason that the documentary 'Poisoning Paradise' hasn't been aired on TV.

Some people don't want other people talking about it.

You're a fucken moron.

Woodman

22nd August 2018, 06:53

It's the same reason that the documentary 'Poisoning Paradise' hasn't been aired on TV.

Some people don't want other people talking about it.

No its because it is propoganda.

Katman

22nd August 2018, 07:20

You're a fucken moron.

Are you having another one of your little 'episodes' Drew?

It's ok - Graystone's here now. You can hold hands and comfort each other.

Katman

22nd August 2018, 07:24

If that's true - where are all the Gingers?

Let me guess - you didn't watch the documentary.

For a more serious comment - the Celts weren't known for being expert seafairers

Really?

https://aoh.com/2008/09/01/the-seafaring-irish/

Got any theories on the stone structures in Waipoua Forest?

pritch

22nd August 2018, 08:53

Celts in NZ before the Maoris?

If that's true - where are all the Gingers?

I seem to recall there was reputedly a tribe of gingers, relatively speaking, somewhere in the middle North Island. West of Taupo? Don't ask for a reference because most stuff I read was pre interweb.

Katman

22nd August 2018, 08:55

Don't ask for a reference because most stuff I read was pre interweb.

You could always watch the documentary.

It talks about precisely that.

TheDemonLord

22nd August 2018, 10:29

Let me guess - you didn't watch the documentary.

Really?

https://aoh.com/2008/09/01/the-seafaring-irish/

Got any theories on the stone structures in Waipoua Forest?

I didn't - I've been on holiday.

I had a look at the article about the Seafaring Irish - it's BS. I'll grant you that the Irish were good fishermen - but again - that's all littoral based seafaring - they didn't go on great raids like our Nordic cousins did.

There's a further issue of a lack of an Anthropological trail - for example - we know that Polynesian cultures dispersed throughout the Pacific - which is why many of the Myths and Legends and genetic markers between say the Maoris to the Hawaiian peoples have a great number of similarities. And moreover - on populated islands inbetween, we have again similar cultures, languages, mythos and populations.

If what is being proposed is true - where are the traces of Celtic civilization ANYWHERE in the 12,000 odd miles between here and the UK? With every other migratory seafaring people - they inevitably leave traces on the intermediate islands between where they started from and where they ended up.

As for the structures - first guess would be a tribe experimented with using Stone as a building material - probably over several generations, even getting quite skilled at it.
Right up until an Earthquake struck - and they realized that dry-stone building and earthquakes don't mix.

I'd further posit that there is a little bit of bias in interpretation, as predominantly a lot of our cultural and academic traditions are English, so it's not surprising that we 'see' a structure that we are familiar with.

Katman

22nd August 2018, 10:38

I had a look at the article about the Seafaring Irish - it's BS.

Dude, it's a Harvard Professor you're arguing against - not me.

Viking01

22nd August 2018, 10:57

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/08/20/in-monsters-we-trust-us-mainstream-media-no-friend-american-people.html

pritch

22nd August 2018, 11:01

You could always watch the documentary.

Thanks, but no thanks. I did try a bit, but nah.

Katman

22nd August 2018, 11:02

Thanks, but no thanks. I did try a bit, but nah.

No surprises there then.

(Well to be fair, I suppose the only surprise is that you 'tried').

Drew

22nd August 2018, 11:30

Thanks, but no thanks. I did try a bit, but nah.

It's fucken hard work eh. Pretty easy to see why Katman would like it though.

Katman

22nd August 2018, 11:37

It's fucken hard work eh. Pretty easy to see why Katman would like it though.

I'm not averse to hard work Drew.

You should try it some time.

pritch

22nd August 2018, 11:46

No surprises there then.

(Well to be fair, I suppose the only surprise is that you 'tried').

It just struck me as a lot of waffle which they were trying to present as factual.

I remember seeing a serious TV doco featuring a kiwi academic. He was somewhere in the Pacific, it may have been Easter Island. He was saying how the Maori had been there and showing what he considered to be evidence to prove this. Then he showed some pottery which he said was Maori, but he was puzzled why Maori had not used pottery anywhere else, either before, or after they had been on that Island. I was just shaking my head thinking since Maori had not otherwise used pottery it was much more likely that the pottery had been left by people other than Maori. Actually I may have been shouting that at the TV. Just because someone has a doctorate it doesn't mean he actually knows what he's talking about.

Katman

22nd August 2018, 11:49

It just struck me as a lot of waffle which they were trying to present as factual.

I remember seeing a serious TV doco featuring a kiwi academic. He was somewhere in the Pacific, it may have been Easter Island. He was saying how the Maori had been there and showing what he considered to be evidence to prove this. Then he showed some pottery which he said was Maori, but he was puzzled why Maori had not used pottery anywhere else, either before, or after they had been on that Island. I was just shaking my head thinking since Maori had not otherwise used pottery it was much more likely that the pottery had been left by people other than Maori. Actually I may have been shouting that at the TV. Just because someone has a doctorate it doesn't mean he actually knows what he's talking about.

In much the same way that Maori didn't build stone structures.

But it appears that someone did in the Waipoua Forest (and elsewhere).

Drew

22nd August 2018, 11:58

I'm not averse to hard work Drew.

You should try it some time.

You're good at needling just the right spot with me, though that's hardly an accolade.

Katman

22nd August 2018, 12:03

You're good at needling just the right spot with me, though that's hardly an accolade.

In that case Drew, might I suggest that you do your mental health a favour and go back and read post #259 - paying particular attention to the last sentence.

There's a good boy.

Banditbandit

22nd August 2018, 12:22

Do you have any theory on the stone structures in Waipoua Forest?

Not really - I haven't looked into it. One explanation is that these are geological structures. There are places around the world where there are arguments about whether structures are geological or man-made.

In much the same way that Maori didn't build stone structures.

To be fair, Maori did build stone structures - but there are few of them around. The only one i Have seen is Koru Pa in Taranaki - where there are stone walls and defense structures. They are nothing like Waipoua Forest, but no-one can use the 'didn't build stone structure" argument.

here's one of the walls

https://nz3.architecturemedia.net/site_media/media/cache/82/75/82752b8b6b5df06ff511595839bd19c6.jpg

https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/places-to-go/taranaki/places/new-plymouth-area/koru-pa/

Banditbandit

22nd August 2018, 12:24

https://aoh.com/2008/09/01/the-seafaring-irish/

yeah .. but the claim is the ones who came here were Welsh - and the Welsh Celts did not turn up until after the Celts supposedly arrived here ..

Katman

22nd August 2018, 12:25

here's one of the walls

Exactly - there's one wall.

Have you considered the possibility that Maori might have made use of pre-existing stone structures?

Banditbandit

22nd August 2018, 12:32

Exactly - there's one wall.

Have you considered the possibility that Maori might have made use of pre-existing stone structures?

Why would I need to do that?

I went to look at the Waipoua Forest structures ... they look similar to Koru Pa ..

Have you considered the possibility that the people who became Maori were here a lot longer than the Pakeha historians claim?

Our oral traditions certainly support that idea ..

Banditbandit

22nd August 2018, 12:33

. They are nothing like Waipoua Forest,

Apologies - I was thinking of the Kaimanawa wall ..

Laava

22nd August 2018, 12:38

Not really - I haven't looked into it. One explanation is that these are geological structures. There are places around the world where there are arguments about whether structures are geological or man-made.

To be fair, Maori did build stone structures - but there are few of them around. The only one i Have seen is Koru Pa in Taranaki - where there are stone walls and defense structures. They are nothing like Waipoua Forest, but no-one can use the 'didn't build stone structure" argument.

here's one of the walls

https://nz3.architecturemedia.net/site_media/media/cache/82/75/82752b8b6b5df06ff511595839bd19c6.jpg

https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/places-to-go/taranaki/places/new-plymouth-area/koru-pa/

Another consideration in regard to Waipoua forest is that it has had a network of temporary roads through it when it was milled for kauri over a century ago. This wall here could have been built by anyone, anytime then and of course there will be no historical record leaving the door open for outrageous claims that cannot be refuted. My wife builds walls like this in the nether regions of our block but fucked if I am going to make any wild claims about ancient redheaded wall building celts within her earshot!
Edit, I acknowledge that your pic BB is not from waipoua forest, but there are formations in there...

Drew

22nd August 2018, 12:38

Our oral traditions certainly support that idea ..

It's unfortunate that only the writer understood the stories of their carving. Things would be a shit ton clearer if you cunts had kept decent records.

Banditbandit

22nd August 2018, 12:41

Exactly - there's one wall.

Have you considered the possibility that Maori might have made use of pre-existing stone structures?

Further - I have been to Koru Pa - yes that is One wall - there are many others, from the spiral leading up to the actual Pa, to ones scattered throughout the Pa.

Did you look at the link I attached?

Graystone

22nd August 2018, 16:19

Why would I need to do that?

I went to look at the Waipoua Forest structures ... they look similar to Koru Pa ..

Have you considered the possibility that the people who became Maori were here a lot longer than the Pakeha historians claim?

Our oral traditions certainly support that idea ..

Is there disagreement between maori historians and the wider histrionic community on this?

I mean, it all sounds a lot like hearsay to me...

Banditbandit

23rd August 2018, 12:11

Another consideration in regard to Waipoua forest is that it has had a network of temporary roads through it when it was milled for kauri over a century ago. This wall here could have been built by anyone, anytime then and of course there will be no historical record leaving the door open for outrageous claims that cannot be refuted. My wife builds walls like this in the nether regions of our block but fucked if I am going to make any wild claims about ancient redheaded wall building celts within her earshot!
Edit, I acknowledge that your pic BB is not from waipoua forest, but there are formations in there...

Exactly .. a pile of stones proves bugger all

It's unfortunate that only the writer understood the stories of their carving. Things would be a shit ton clearer if you cunts had kept decent records.

We did keep decent records - it's you whiteys that can't read them ... how illiterate :innocent:

And don't you whiteys have the Death of the Author theories? That theory means that it does not matter what the writer puts down - the important thing is how the reader interprets them .. so you can no longer claim have 'decent records" :innocent:

Katman

23rd August 2018, 12:24

Exactly .. a pile of stones proves bugger all

But those particular piles of stones are probably worthy of investigation - rather than being hidden away from the public.

jasonu

23rd August 2018, 13:57

But those particular piles of stones are probably worthy of investigation - rather than being hidden away from the public.

The last thing the maoris want is actual proof that they weren't here first (apart from the Moriories of course).

Drew

23rd August 2018, 14:34

But those particular piles of stones are probably worthy of investigation - rather than being hidden away from the public.

For the last time, it's not hidden away you fool.

Katman

23rd August 2018, 15:19

For the last time, it's not hidden away you fool.

The officially documented findings of the structures in Waipoua Forest are apparently considered that sensitive that they won't be released for public scrutiny till 2063.

That constitutes hidden away in my opinion.

carbonhed

23rd August 2018, 16:53

The officially documented findings of the structures in Waipoua Forest are apparently considered that sensitive that they won't be realised for public scrutiny till 2063.

That constitutes hidden away in my opinion.

Seriously?

Graystone

23rd August 2018, 17:30

Woodman

23rd August 2018, 18:21

The last thing the maoris want is actual proof that they weren't here first (apart from the Moriories of course).

Why? has anyone else put in a claim?

oldrider

23rd August 2018, 18:41

Why? has anyone else put in a claim?

There have been other suggestions but they claim that they don't get a fair hearing from modern Maori scholars/academics. :corn:

Katman

23rd August 2018, 18:48

Source required. Sounds more like free drivel than free speech...

Watch the documentary and make your own mind up.

Drew

23rd August 2018, 19:30

Watch the documentary and make your own mind up.

So this hidden documentary, is something we can still watch? But it's still an infringement of free speach?

You're a fucken moron.

Katman

23rd August 2018, 19:35

You're a fucken moron.

Give it a go Drew.

See if your attention span is up to it.

Woodman

23rd August 2018, 19:51

Watch the documentary and make your own mind up.

Its not a documentary, it was made by someone with an agenda.

Katman

23rd August 2018, 19:56

Its not a documentary

That's lovely dear.

Graystone

24th August 2018, 06:40

Watch the documentary and make your own mind up.

Sanctions on documents are a matter of public record, if there was any validity to what you say, you'd point to that instead of some video by a bloke with an agenda...

Drew

24th August 2018, 07:38

The discussion has reached the point where fuckheadman just repeatedly says. "Watch the video". Since several of us have tried and found it to be so terrible that we cannot, he feels he must be right.

It must be such a curse to be 'woke'.

Katman

24th August 2018, 09:22

Well it appears that the 75 year moratorium imposed on certain information relating to Waipoua Forest was challenged and removed in 1996.

http://www.celticnz.co.nz/embargo_saga.html

oldrider

24th August 2018, 10:44

Laava

24th August 2018, 12:42

KB Rant or Rave special:- https://twitter.com/HenryMakow/status/1032663912393654274/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline% 7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3AHenryMakow&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F . :whistle:

Wonder if there will ever come a time in R&R when conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy facts? Hasn't happened yet...

Banditbandit

24th August 2018, 13:31

The last thing the maoris want is actual proof that they weren't here first (apart from the Moriories of course).

Oh bullshit - the other theories lack credibility ...

Katman

24th August 2018, 13:57

Wonder if there will ever come a time in R&R when conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy facts?

You mean like how they actually are spraying chemicals into our atmosphere?

Banditbandit

24th August 2018, 14:07

You mean like how they actually are spraying chemicals into our atmosphere?

Which chemicals and for what purpose?

(Note to self: do I really want to open that can of worms ?)

Katman

24th August 2018, 14:31

Which chemicals and for what purpose?

(Note to self: do I really want to open that can of worms ?)

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - look it up.

oldrider

24th August 2018, 15:38

Wonder if there will ever come a time in R&R when conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy facts? Hasn't happened yet...

Beg to differ - happens all the time - if we all saw and accepted everything the same as each other we would still be living in caves - vive la difference! :corn: respect helps. :yes:

jasonu

24th August 2018, 16:05

Oh bullshit - the other theories lack credibility ...

That is neither my point or what I said.

Grumph

24th August 2018, 16:53

I was amused to see that Southern was one of the "authorities" that Trump got his "facts" from about land confiscation and white farmer deaths in South Africa. Which led him to his latest string of incorrect tweets.....

Laava

24th August 2018, 17:01

Beg to differ - happens all the time - if we all saw and accepted everything the same as each other we would still be living in caves - vive la difference! :corn: respect helps. :yes:

In Rant and Rave? Which one?

Laava

24th August 2018, 17:05

Which chemicals and for what purpose?

(Note to self: do I really want to open that can of worms ?)

Yep, that really is a can of worms....

But watch how the self righteously indignant are unable to answer the question. At all.

If they were spraying chemicals into the aptmosphere I for one would be very concerned. Fact is, there is no proof of this happening. I personally know many people within the aviation industry and this theory is met with derision if you bring it up.

Drew

24th August 2018, 17:24

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - look it up.

Everything I've just found says that the capability is there, but its not happening yet.

Got a credible source that confirms it is being practiced?

Drew

24th August 2018, 17:26

You mean like how they actually are spraying chemicals into our atmosphere?

Oh yeah. The plan is to spray into the STRATOSPHERE, not the atmosphere.

There's a really massive difference.

Katman

24th August 2018, 17:48

Everything I've just found says that the capability is there, but its not happening yet.

Got a credible source that confirms it is being practiced?

Cloud seeding has been around since the 40's.

Drew

24th August 2018, 18:12

Cloud seeding has been around since the 40's.

Cloud seeding has been possible, and tested rarely since the 40s.

But again, that's not in the stratosphere...you know...like the title suggests...STRATOSHPERIC Aerosol Injection.

Drew

24th August 2018, 18:13

Cloud seeding has been around since the 40's.

Fucken tool.

Katman

24th August 2018, 18:15

Cloud seeding has been possible, and tested rarely since the 40s.

But again, that's not in the stratosphere...you know...like the title suggests...STRATOSHPERIC Aerosol Injection.

And you can safely bet that if the Director of the CIA is openly talking about stratospheric aerosol injection, they have been doing it for quite some time already.

Drew

24th August 2018, 18:23

And you can safely bet that if the Director of the CIA is openly talking about stratospheric aerosol injection, they have been doing it for quite some time already.

Ah, they said they could do they are doing it.

Solid argument.

Almost as solid as your rep comment.

nzspokes

24th August 2018, 18:37

The officially documented findings of the structures in Waipoua Forest are apparently considered that sensitive that they won't be released for public scrutiny till 2063.

That constitutes hidden away in my opinion.

Now thats some funny shit.

Laava

24th August 2018, 19:07

Fucken tool.

On second thoughts, it appears they may have been spraying retardant around Casa Katman!

Graystone

25th August 2018, 01:40

Well it appears that the 75 year moratorium imposed on certain information relating to Waipoua Forest was challenged and removed in 1996.

http://www.celticnz.co.nz/embargo_saga.html

Amazing what happens when you fact check the shit you post right!

Katman

25th August 2018, 07:27

Amazing what happens when you fact check the shit you post right!

Well I suppose the next question that an enquiring mind would ask is, what was considered so sensitive as to warrant a 75 year restriction in the first place?

Graystone

25th August 2018, 07:54

Well I suppose the next question that an enquiring mind would ask is, what was considered so sensitive as to warrant a 75 year restriction in the first place?

Such a 'mind' could read it and let us know :laugh:

TheDemonLord

28th August 2018, 16:27

husaberg

28th August 2018, 17:31

So I see Chelsea Manning wants to come to NZ and talk and National are opposing this as she is a convicted Felon.

Me personally, I say let her come in and Speak.

There are some issues around her whistleblowing that are contentious and I don't think I agree with - but hiding behind the "Convicted Felon" (it was under the UCMJ she was convicted, I'm not sure if that changes whether she's a Felon but whatevs) - her sentence was Commuted and as far as I'm concerned - what she has to say (regardless of my feelings on it) is now in the Public interest and therefore she should come and Speak.

Shes lucky to be out of jail and she could have been sentenced to death in relation to the charges she was charged with
I have no interest in what she says either way.
What was the outcome of Mike Tysons latest attempt to visit NZ?

looks like he was booked in again in 2017 i thought he was barred from entry for life?

Katman

28th August 2018, 17:56

I have no interest in what she says either way.

Then don't go and listen to her if she does come here.

That's how free speech should work - you're free to ignore it if it doesn't interest you.

Graystone

28th August 2018, 18:09

Then don't go and listen to her if she does come here.

That's how free speech should work - you're free to ignore it if it doesn't interest you.

Not quite, free speech also allows you to tell others to shut the fuck up or go fuck their hats, preferably both.

husaberg

28th August 2018, 18:22

Then don't go and listen to her if she does come here.

That's how free speech should work - you're free to ignore it if it doesn't interest you.

I think you are confusing me with someone who considers your opinion relevant or even well thought out..
No criminal should be able to further profit out of their crime after being convicted and released.
So unless you also believe Mike Tyson should also be able to come to NZ and give speeches about how to rape women, maybe you should re think through your simplistic free speech definition.
Maybe you will then realise its not as simple as that.

Woodman

28th August 2018, 18:42

I think you are confusing me with someone who considers your opinion relevant or even well thought out..
No criminal should be able to further profit out of their crime after being convicted and released.
So unless you also believe Mike Tyson should be able to come to NZ and give speeches about how to rape women, maybe you should think through your simplistic free speech definition.
tMaybe you will then realise its not as simple as that.

Mike Tyson was also a fucking good boxer.

Katman

28th August 2018, 18:43

Not quite, free speech also allows you to tell others to shut the fuck up or go fuck their hats, preferably both.

As is entirely your right.

But taking steps to deliberately shut down free speech goes way beyond that.

husaberg

28th August 2018, 18:49

Mike Tyson was also a fucking good boxer.
By all accounts a pretty shit rapist.
Pretty sure that's not his boxing prowess why he was convicted jailed and refused entry to NZ though.

Katman

28th August 2018, 18:56

So unless you also believe Mike Tyson should also be able to come to NZ and give speeches about how to rape women, maybe you should re think through your simplistic free speech definition.

I suppose that comes down to my ability to recognise the moral difference between someone raping a person and someone exposing corrupt governmental practices.

I don't expect you'll ever be capable of understanding that difference though.

Woodman

28th August 2018, 19:09

Pretty sure that's not why he was convicted jailed and refused entry to NZ though.

Yeah but it may be what he is coming to talk about. I don't think he is over here to promote rape.

husaberg

28th August 2018, 19:12

Yeah but it may be what he is coming to talk about. I don't think he is over here to promote rape.

The dudes lucky to string to words together.........

Applicants for all visas must be of good character, not pose a security risk and not threaten New Zealand’s international reputation.
People with serious character issues can’t be granted any visa or entry permission, except in very special circumstances.
People with other character issues must have the good character requirement waived before they can be granted residence.

Serious character issues
You can't be granted a visa if you:
have ever been convicted of an offence for which you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more
have been convicted in the last 10 years of an offence for which you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or longer
are prohibited from entering New Zealand
have ever been removed, excluded or deported from any country.
You will also not be granted a visa if we have reason to believe you:

are likely to commit an offence in New Zealand that is punishable by imprisonment
are likely to be a risk to security
are likely to be a threat to public order
are likely to be a risk to the public interest.
If you have a serious character issue, you are normally ineligible to be granted a visa unless we grant you a special direction.
.

Katman

28th August 2018, 19:13

The dudes lucky to string to words together.........

I suspect he has a better grasp of English than you do.

husaberg

28th August 2018, 19:13

I suppose that comes down to my ability to recognise the moral difference between someone raping a person and someone exposing corrupt governmental practices.

I don't expect you'll ever be capable of understanding that difference though.

So free KATSPAM FREE SPEECH draws the line at morals now, its not what you said first........

Then don't go and listen to her if she does come here.

That's how free speech should work - you're free to ignore it if it doesn't interest you.

I suspect he has a better grasp of English than you do.
You suspect everything because you are paranoid, But is pretty funny coming from someone that clearly has a very limited vocabulary and a tenuous grasp on reality. So thanks for the giggle.

Woodman

28th August 2018, 20:22

The dudes lucky to string to words together.........

Yeah but those are rules, rules can and should be broken to prevent fuckwitism, and how much threat would Mike Tyson be considering he is a major celebrity therefore his every movement will be documented .

husaberg

28th August 2018, 20:43

Yeah but those are rules, rules can and should be broken to prevent fuckwitism, and how much threat would Mike Tyson be considering he is a major celebrity therefore his every movement will be documented .
Zero threat as he wont be allowed in, regardless of his celebrity status he doesn't qualify under our visa rules.

Woodman

28th August 2018, 20:49

Zero threat as he wont be allowed in, regardless of his celebrity status he doesn't qualify under our visa rules.

Like I said, rules are for fuckwits and can and should be bent once in a while, unless you work for the council, those guys are poweretripping fucktards.

husaberg

28th August 2018, 20:54

Like I said, rules are for fuckwits and can and should be bent once in a while, unless you work for the council, those guys are poweretripping fucktards.
If you think its okay to bend the rules just be cause hes a celebrity side show, that's not what i consider free speech that's elitism.

Woodman

28th August 2018, 20:59

If you think its okay to bend the rules just be cause hes a celebrity side show, that's not what i consider free speech that's elitism.

No, nothing to do with celebrity, just think he may have an interesting story to tell, that and he was an elite sportsman.

husaberg

28th August 2018, 21:04

No, nothing to do with celebrity, just think he may have an interesting story to tell, that and he was an elite sportsman.
ie a celebrity,:laugh:
While am sure it would be intersting to hear OJ Simpson give a speech or to and attend a glove fitting i doubt hes getting in as well even though he was an elite sportsperson as well.

FJRider

28th August 2018, 21:07

As is entirely your right.

But taking steps to deliberately shut down free speech goes way beyond that.

Even the Freedom of speech can be limited ... to respect the rights and reputations of others.

And as for "shutting down free speech" ... for the protection of national security, Public Order, or public health and morals ... quite legal in NZ

But you are legally entitled to hold opinions ... but how/where (and what) you can voice ... is limited in law.

jasonu

29th August 2018, 02:22

Yeah but those are rules, rules can and should be broken to prevent fuckwitism, and how much threat would Mike Tyson be considering he is a major celebrity therefore his every movement will be documented .

Maybe in NZ, he barely, barely, BARELY rates a mention here.

Graystone

29th August 2018, 06:25

As is entirely your right.

But taking steps to deliberately shut down free speech goes way beyond that.

Depends on the 'free speech' you want to hear I guess, Joe Public is incabable of shutting down other people's free speech without breaking the law. It clearly pisses you off when people exercising their right to tell other people to shut the fuck up, results in just that action, but it is by no means going beyond the principles of free speech.

Woodman

29th August 2018, 06:38

Maybe in NZ, he barely, barely, BARELY rates a mention here.

He hardly rates a mention here either, but the news hungry celebrity obsessed media in NZ will be all over him like a rash the minute he is allowed in.

Katman

29th August 2018, 08:08

Depends on the 'free speech' you want to hear I guess, Joe Public is incabable of shutting down other people's free speech without breaking the law.

Except Phil Goff and Jan Thomas did exactly that.

And it's what Michael Woodhouse is now trying to bring about.

Drew

29th August 2018, 10:38

Except Phil Goff and Jan Thomas did exactly that.

And it's what Michael Woodhouse is now trying to bring about.
Bullshit. It's how you want to interpret it, but you're just into that sort of thing.

TheDemonLord

29th August 2018, 11:13

Depends on the 'free speech' you want to hear I guess, Joe Public is incabable of shutting down other people's free speech without breaking the law. It clearly pisses you off when people exercising their right to tell other people to shut the fuck up, results in just that action, but it is by no means going beyond the principles of free speech.

Hang on a sec there bud.

You are describing the Hecklers Veto - which is not Free Speech.

Group 1 screaming at Group 2 to shut the fuck up isn't free speech.

Group 1 arguing against what Group 2 is saying is.

The difference is subtle - but I increasing don't like this attempt to conflate the 2.

Katman

29th August 2018, 11:31

Hang on a sec there bud.

You are describing the Hecklers Veto - which is not Free Speech.

I have no problem with the idea of people demonstrating and screaming "shut the fuck up" at the top of their lungs.

If that's all they've got to offer it's a clear indication of the worthlessness of their particular 'free speech'.

What I do object to is individuals shutting down open discussion simply because they have the power to do so.

jasonu

29th August 2018, 12:10

I have no problem with the idea of people demonstrating and screaming "shut the fuck up" at the top of their lungs.

If that's all they've got to offer it's a clear indication of the worthlessness of their particular 'free speech'.

What I do object to is individuals shutting down open discussion simply because they have the power to do so.

Yes, yes and yes.

TheDemonLord

29th August 2018, 15:10

Katman

29th August 2018, 15:21

Okay - what if the first scenario, by nature of volume, ends up in the third scenario?

Then I still see that as the fault of the individual who shuts the discussion down.

And those who have nothing better to do then scream "shut the fuck up" (who graystone/bogan seems to have become the self-appointed spokesperson for), should be exposed for the vacuous fuckwits that they are.

Paul in NZ

29th August 2018, 15:34

FJRider

29th August 2018, 15:47

... If I lean right and the left want to set up a speaking engagement in my café its my right to say no thanks. It gets trickier with countries of course but the same logic applies.

Say what you want but please don't say it here...

I'm actually OK with that. To a point...

You can go a step further ... if you do not wish to hear whatever it is they want to say ... you should be free (entitled/lawful) to state "I do not want to hear what you wish to say" ... should you not ... ??? ;)

Katman

29th August 2018, 15:50

It gets trickier with countries of course but the same logic applies.

Say what you want but please don't say it here...

Yes Paul, a lot trickier.

What qualifies someone to speak on a whole country's behalf?

Paul in NZ

29th August 2018, 15:54

Yes Paul, a lot trickier.

What qualifies someone to speak on a whole country's behalf?

In our case its an elected official or someone appointed by the PM

Say David Lange didn't have universal support for the nuclear free thing BUT likely majority support. Besides any 'opinion' expressed is not set in granite - these things change with the times...

Katman

29th August 2018, 16:06

In our case its an elected official or someone appointed by the PM

Say David Lange didn't have universal support for the nuclear free thing BUT likely majority support. Besides any 'opinion' expressed is not set in granite - these things change with the times...

Well canvasing the percentage of support for something might be a useful measuring stick Paul.

Simply stating that someone's voice isn't to be heard smacks of a dictatorship.

FJRider

29th August 2018, 16:06

Depends on the 'free speech' you want to hear I guess, Joe Public is incabable of shutting down other people's free speech without breaking the law. It clearly pisses you off when people exercising their right to tell other people to shut the fuck up, results in just that action, but it is by no means going beyond the principles of free speech.

Even "Joe Public" have legal avenues to pursue ... if they believe their own rights are/will be infringed. Most are too fucking lazy to take any action themselves ... and rely on elected members of Central/Local Government to take action "In the Public Interest of Law and Order".

Freedom of speech ... does not override every article of law in this (or any/every)country.

carbonhed

29th August 2018, 16:38

Friend I was working with today wondered if Bradley and Chelsea Manning were related... sigh.

I've got no time for the treacherous little fucking rodent but he should be allowed to speak. What a dumb bunch of assholes National are being over this.

And when I said treacherous "little" fucking rodent... here he is with some adults...

https://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2013/07/Manning_1.JPG?alias=standard_900x600nc

You'd think a little psychological profiling might just have picked up some of his issues before trusting him with as much as a toilet brush.

Graystone

29th August 2018, 16:49

Graystone

29th August 2018, 16:51

Except Phil Goff and Jan Thomas did exactly that.

And it's what Michael Woodhouse is now trying to bring about.

No, they didn't. The speakers were still free to speak somewhere else. That's what you muppets don't understand, free speech is not about forcing others to listen.

TheDemonLord

29th August 2018, 16:57

Both are free speech, attempting to base what is free speech or not on your value judgement of their validity is just fucking moronic.

One is attempting to suppress the other - that's not a value judgement.

Katman

29th August 2018, 16:59

That's what you muppets don't understand, free speech is not about forcing others to listen.

Nobody was forcing anyone to listen to Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern or Don Brash.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Drew

29th August 2018, 17:32

Nobody was forcing anyone to listen to Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern or Don Brash.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Freedom of speach does not grant anyone the right to speak everywhere they want to be heard.

They can speak in any public place, that they are allowed to be in.

FJRider

29th August 2018, 17:34

Hang on a sec there bud.

You are describing the Hecklers Veto - which is not Free Speech.

Group 1 screaming at Group 2 to shut the fuck up isn't free speech.

Group 1 arguing against what Group 2 is saying is.

The difference is subtle - but I increasing don't like this attempt to conflate the 2.

"The Hecklers Veto" is when the authorities (ie: Police) shut down a speaker "In the interest of Public Order" simply because of what the hecklers "Possible" actions might be if the speaker was allowed to be heard. Entirely lawful under the international rules of Freedom of Expression .. Under article 19(3) ICCPR ( https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx )

Group 1 screaming at Group 2 to shut the fuck up is free speech. However ... if Group 2 take offense at that, Group 1 can be held accountable in a court of law ... should they choose to take that action/option.

Woodman

29th August 2018, 18:37

I have no problem with the idea of people demonstrating and screaming "shut the fuck up" at the top of their lungs.

If that's all they've got to offer it's a clear indication of the worthlessness of their particular 'free speech'.

So when you come back with something like 'fuck off shitforbrains" do we then consider your argument and previous and subsequent arguments worthless?

Katman

29th August 2018, 18:45

So when you come back with something like 'fuck off shitforbrains" do we then consider your argument and previous and subsequent arguments worthless?

No, it's just my way of showing my level of contempt for you.

Woodman

29th August 2018, 18:52

No, it's just my way of showing my level of contempt for you.

Aaaah, I can tell that you like me really. Go on admit it.

husaberg

29th August 2018, 19:09

Not that I really care but...

Free speech is exactly that... This (or that) person is free to say what ever the heck they want BUT it is entirely appropriate for an organisation, business or even a country to not allow a particular person to say what they are going to say on their patch. If I lean right and the left want to set up a speaking engagement in my café its my right to say no thanks. It gets trickier with countries of course but the same logic applies.
Say what you want but please don't say it here...
I'm actually OK with that. To a point...

Friend I was working with today wondered if Bradley and Chelsea Manning were related... sigh.
I've got no time for the treacherous little fucking rodent but he should be allowed to speak. What a dumb bunch of assholes National are being over this.

And when I said treacherous "little" fucking rodent... here he is with some adults...
You'd think a little psychological profiling might just have picked up some of his issues before trusting him with as much as a toilet brush.

As far as i know No one wants to stop him speaking, just traveling to NZ, its not about him/her persay its the rules we have that apply to everyone.
If he/she wants to speak to people in NZ no one is stopping him, we have telephones Skype and many other ways he could speak to NZ......
The difference is reason he/she is traveling to NZ wanting to speak and profit from their crimes

Katman

29th August 2018, 19:38

As far as i know No one wants to stop him speaking, just traveling to NZ, its not about him/her persay its the rules we have that apply to everyone.

If that was the case then Immigration could just block her entry on arrival.

It wouldn't require a National MP getting his panties all bunched up.

husaberg

29th August 2018, 19:51

If that was the case then Immigration could just block her entry on arrival.

It wouldn't require a National MP getting his panties all bunched up.
You are pretty ill informed as per usual.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/185771-Free-speech?p=1131108269#post1131108269

pplicants for all visas must be of good character, not pose a security risk and not threaten New Zealand’s international reputation.
People with serious character issues can’t be granted any visa or entry permission, except in very special circumstances.
People with other character issues must have the good character requirement waived before they can be granted residence.

Serious character issues
You can't be granted a visa if you:
have ever been convicted of an offence for which you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more
have been convicted in the last 10 years of an offence for which you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or longer
are prohibited from entering New Zealand
have ever been removed, excluded or deported from any country.
You will also not be granted a visa if we have reason to believe you:

are likely to commit an offence in New Zealand that is punishable by imprisonment
are likely to be a risk to security
are likely to be a threat to public order
are likely to be a risk to the public interest.
If you have a serious character issue, you are normally ineligible to be granted a visa unless we grant you a special direction.
.

You apply at least weeks prior to entry which has just occurred.
For an exception to the rules barring their entry to be made, it has to be in the public interest or to cause them hardship.
I cant see it being either. boo hoo....

pritch

29th August 2018, 21:01

Most people don't have a very good understanding of free speech, even in America where their constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Internet users seem to think free speech means you can say anything you like. Not so. Laws of libel still apply. So do court orders.

Generally you have a right to speak - within the law. Nobody has to provide a platform. Nobody has to listen.

Some regard Chelsea Manning as a traitor, in similar circumstances I might agree, but not this time. View those murderous doped up arseholes in a helicopter shooting up photographers and tell me the world didn't need to know about what was going on.

Another Military leaker, Reality Winner, just received a five year jail sentence for leaking military information. It was her who let the world know about the Russians meddling in the US election. She's in jail but none of the guilty conspirators are. Yet.

Katman

29th August 2018, 21:52

....and tell me the world didn't need to know about what was going on.

And undoubtedly still is.

FJRider

29th August 2018, 21:57

If that was the case then Immigration could just block her entry on arrival.

It wouldn't require a National MP getting his panties all bunched up.

They can and do ... and have had plenty of bad press for doing so. Special (big name) cases that are getting a lot of publicity ... get passed "Upstairs" for the final decision.

In the case of most "Joe Bloggs" applications ... If their visa application is declined, they can apply to the Minister for exemption.

Opposition MP's wanting publicity have been known to get their knickers in a twist ... nothing new there ...

TheDemonLord

29th August 2018, 23:15

"The Hecklers Veto" is when the authorities (ie: Police) shut down a speaker "In the interest of Public Order" simply because of what the hecklers "Possible" actions might be if the speaker was allowed to be heard. Entirely lawful under the international rules of Freedom of Expression .. Under article 19(3) ICCPR ( https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx )

Group 1 screaming at Group 2 to shut the fuck up is free speech. However ... if Group 2 take offense at that, Group 1 can be held accountable in a court of law ... should they choose to take that action/option.

You've referred to the strict legal definition - the common parlance definition is as I described it.

I'll re-iterate for clarity sake - If (as an example) during a Talk - a Heckler yelled "Shut the Fuck up" Loud enough to be heard - that's not a Veto, the Talk can continue - both parties have exercised their right to Free Speech, likewise if during a Q and A - someone approached the microphone and said the same - completely fine. If you get a group of people together, and repeatedly chant the phrase, in order to drown out the Speech being given, or Pull a fire alarm, in an attempt to get the venue evacuated and the talk shut down - that's not acceptable, because in supposedly excising their right to free speech, they are violating someone elses.

In relation to Chelsea Manning - I don't entirely agree with what she did (I also don't entirely disagree either) - I've got no interest in what she has to say myself, but I do believe that what she has to say is in the public interest and that she should be allowed into the country to Speak.

Graystone

30th August 2018, 07:10

One is attempting to suppress the other - that's not a value judgement.

That's exactly what it is, shut the fuck up can mean a judgement based on the lack of merit in what someone else is saying. Anti vaccers and conspiracy theorists are not reachable through debate, they should just be told to shut the fuck up, and ignored. That is not an effort to curtail their freedom from saying such drivel, just curtail the consequences of it.

Graystone

30th August 2018, 07:12

Nobody was forcing anyone to listen to Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern or Don Brash.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

That venue isn't everything, if you start forcing the venue, then you do start forcing people to listen to this garbage.

Katman

30th August 2018, 07:20

Katman

30th August 2018, 09:24

Some regard Chelsea Manning as a traitor, in similar circumstances I might agree, but not this time. View those murderous doped up arseholes in a helicopter shooting up photographers and tell me the world didn't need to know about what was going on.

And that raises an interesting point.....

I wonder how many of those who are condemning Manning as a traitor, even know what it was that she exposed the public to.

jasonu

30th August 2018, 10:03

Yes Paul, a lot trickier.

What qualifies someone to speak on a whole country's behalf?

Get less votes than the opposition, suck off Winston Peters and become prime minister

Banditbandit

30th August 2018, 11:10

Internet users seem to think free speech means you can say anything you like.

Yes - and internet sites are privately owned and often paid for. They are not public spaces, even if they are publicly accessible - but usually even then you have to sign up and accept the rules to participate ..

The Internet is not public domain.

Who owns this site? It is clearly paid for by advertising .. and the owners control what is said here .. just try to push the limits and see how quickly yo get an infarction ..

Generally you have a right to speak - within the law. Nobody has to provide a platform. Nobody has to listen.

Exactly ...

That venue isn't everything, if you start forcing the venue, then you do start forcing people to listen to this garbage.

Exactly ... You cannot force private owners to open their venue to whomever asks or demands ..

Even if you force venues to open up, you can't force people to listen .. not ever, no way, no how - it is possible for force people to go - but they will listen or not on their own choice.

In an open-minded society there should be absolutely no reason to even suggest the idea of forcing a venue to provide a setting for open discussion.

I'm not sure I follow that ... I agree that venues should not be forced to provide a setting for open discussion - I am not sure what that has to do with an open-minded society ..

Katman

30th August 2018, 11:16

I'm not sure I follow that ... I agree that venues should not be forced to provide a setting for open discussion - I am not sure what that has to do with an open-minded society ..

In a truly open minded society, venues would welcome open discussion on contentious issues.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that.

TheDemonLord

30th August 2018, 11:17

That's exactly what it is, shut the fuck up can mean a judgement based on the lack of merit in what someone else is saying. Anti vaccers and conspiracy theorists are not reachable through debate, they should just be told to shut the fuck up, and ignored. That is not an effort to curtail their freedom from saying such drivel, just curtail the consequences of it.

And who is the arbiter of what should and should not be curtailed? Because history shows that the type of person that wants that sort of job, is exactly the type of person that should NEVER have that type of job.

And what guarantee do you have that this standard you've setup won't one day be turned upon something you love?

To speak to the group you referenced - I've given my opinion, at great length, in detail and on multiple occasions on the AntiVaxx crowd - I hold them in particular contempt as theirs is the only conspiracy that has a real world effect (Children who have unnecessarily died)

And even in that scenario - it is still the lesser of the 2 evils compared to censoring of them.

oldrider

30th August 2018, 11:19

The adage:- "you can lead a horse to water (In KB's case donkeys and mules abound) but you cant make it drink" - springs to mind. :laugh:

Banditbandit

30th August 2018, 11:36

In a truly open minded society, venues would welcome open discussion on contentious issues.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that.

Thank you - that is clear ..

No, I disagree - the owner of the venues will always have a say ... and not all venue owners will welcome open discussion some will always only allow those who agree with them.

I would say that in a truly open society there will be plenty of venues that welcome open discussion.

Katman

30th August 2018, 11:37

... and not all venue owners will welcome open discussion some will always only allow those who agree with them.

Then those ones sure as fuck don't qualify as being open minded.

Graystone

30th August 2018, 12:43

"Shut the fuck up" is not a counter-argument though.

In an open-minded society there should be absolutely no reason to even suggest the idea of forcing a venue to provide a setting for open discussion.

Does it need to be a counter argument?

Then stop bitching about venues not providing the settings for the discussions you wanted...

Graystone

30th August 2018, 12:46

And who is the arbiter of what should and should not be curtailed? Because history shows that the type of person that wants that sort of job, is exactly the type of person that should NEVER have that type of job.

And what guarantee do you have that this standard you've setup won't one day be turned upon something you love?

To speak to the group you referenced - I've given my opinion, at great length, in detail and on multiple occasions on the AntiVaxx crowd - I hold them in particular contempt as theirs is the only conspiracy that has a real world effect (Children who have unnecessarily died)

And even in that scenario - it is still the lesser of the 2 evils compared to censoring of them.

Whoever wants to speak, that's kind of the 'free' bit about it. Do try and keep up...

Katman

30th August 2018, 12:47

Then stop bitching about venues not providing the settings for the discussions you wanted...

Wrong end of the stick yet again.

I'm bitching about us not being an open minded society.

Graystone

30th August 2018, 12:54

Yes - and internet sites are privately owned and often paid for. They are not public spaces, even if they are publicly accessible - but usually even then you have to sign up and accept the rules to participate ..

The Internet is not public domain.

Who owns this site? It is clearly paid for by advertising .. and the owners control what is said here .. just try to push the limits and see how quickly yo get an infarction ..

Exactly ...

Exactly ... You cannot force private owners to open their venue to whomever asks or demands ..

Even if you force venues to open up, you can't force people to listen .. not ever, no way, no how - it is possible for force people to go - but they will listen or not on their own choice.

I'm not sure I follow that ... I agree that venues should not be forced to provide a setting for open discussion - I am not sure what that has to do with an open-minded society ..

True, perhaps to hear is more what I meant. Many, many things are just not worth hearing, let alone listening to...

Graystone

30th August 2018, 12:55

Wrong end of the stick yet again.

I'm bitching about us not being an open minded society.

Righto, just as long as being open minded means agree with you eh!

Katman

30th August 2018, 12:56

Righto, just as long as being open minded means agree with you eh!

Not at all.

Open minded means being prepared to discuss something, with the possibility that you might learn something - rather than just responding with "shut the fuck up".

Graystone

30th August 2018, 13:10

Not at all.

Open minded means being prepared to discuss something, with the possibility that you might learn something - rather than just responding with "shut the fuck up".

And on, and on, and on though right? How many times do we have to discuss shit with close minded morons before we can discharge our duty to be open minded and just tell them to shut the fuck up?

Katman

30th August 2018, 13:37

....before we can discharge our duty to be open minded and just tell them to shut the fuck up?

Why would you want to 'discharge your duty to be open minded'?

TheDemonLord

30th August 2018, 14:08

Whoever wants to speak, that's kind of the 'free' bit about it. Do try and keep up...

And when the shouting of "Shut the fuck up" does not produce the curtailing influence that you want, what then?

Or what if something controversial is shouted down, that is actually true, what then?

There are some very slippery slopes that you are trying to navigate, as opposed to the simple absolute principle - Both parties are free to speak, so long as they don't infringe on each others rights. They can protest, debate, counterpoint, critique, ridicule etc. but not suppress.

pritch

30th August 2018, 14:24

I've given my opinion, at great length, in detail and on multiple occasions on the AntiVaxx crowd - I hold them in particular contempt as theirs is the only conspiracy that has a real world effect (Children who have unnecessarily died)

There is currently a measles outbreak in Europe which, if I recall correctly, has resulted in thirty seven deaths. And counting.

Criminal stupidity.

pritch

30th August 2018, 14:38

Graystone

30th August 2018, 16:48

And when the shouting of "Shut the fuck up" does not produce the curtailing influence that you want, what then?

Or what if something controversial is shouted down, that is actually true, what then?

There are some very slippery slopes that you are trying to navigate, as opposed to the simple absolute principle - Both parties are free to speak, so long as they don't infringe on each others rights. They can protest, debate, counterpoint, critique, ridicule etc. but not suppress.

Nothing then, free speech isn't some magicall bullshit that will fix everything. your continued attempts to contrive examples only prove my point, your value judgements on what is said are utterly irrelevant to the principles of free speech. Free speech has nothing to do with saying the 'right' thing.

Graystone

30th August 2018, 16:50

Why would you want to 'discharge your duty to be open minded'?

Just on the principle that open mindedness is the way to learning the truth.

carbonhed

30th August 2018, 16:59

This clip is stated to be raw footage but it has been shortened at both ends. You will note how a Reuters reporter and a photographer with cameras becomes "six people with AK47s and RPGs". The helicopter crew went on to shoot up a van with kids in but that has been cut. This only became public courtesy of Chelsea Manning and Wikileaks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25EWUUBjPMo&frags=pl%2Cwn

Well there were a group of six or seven people and the guy in the hooped shirt certainly looked to be carrying an AK47... aaaand the guy who pokes his head around the corner and points a big telephoto lens down the street... mistaken for an RPG... shit happens.

Having kids in a van in no way precludes some other shit going down.

I guess that makes me unsympathetic.

TheDemonLord

30th August 2018, 17:29

Nothing then, free speech isn't some magicall bullshit that will fix everything. your continued attempts to contrive examples only prove my point, your value judgements on what is said are utterly irrelevant to the principles of free speech. Free speech has nothing to do with saying the 'right' thing.

Yet, you've advocated for the silencing of Speech that you consider 'wrong'.

And those examples are far from contrived, as a brief overview of history will attest.

mashman

30th August 2018, 17:44

Why would you want to 'discharge your duty to be open minded'?

bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa. Nailed.

Katman

30th August 2018, 19:23

Well there were a group of six or seven people and the guy in the hooped shirt certainly looked to be carrying an AK47... aaaand the guy who pokes his head around the corner and points a big telephoto lens down the street... mistaken for an RPG... shit happens.

Let's not forget, the Yanks should never have been there in the first place.

It was a war built from lies.

(Lies and a Zionist agenda).

husaberg

30th August 2018, 19:30

Well there were a group of six or seven people and the guy in the hooped shirt certainly looked to be carrying an AK47... aaaand the guy who pokes his head around the corner and points a big telephoto lens down the street... mistaken for an RPG... shit happens.

Having kids in a van in no way precludes some other shit going down.

I guess that makes me unsympathetic.

Lets not also forget that the incident was reported about and investigated at the time.
the only thing wikileaks added was the release of the video of the peiople getting killed which i am sure the families would rather not have had broadcast.

FJRider

30th August 2018, 20:03

... In relation to Chelsea Manning - I don't entirely agree with what she did (I also don't entirely disagree either) - I've got no interest in what she has to say myself, but I do believe that what she has to say is in the public interest and that she should be allowed into the country to Speak.

I do not agree either. I also have no interest in anything she has to say. And I believe no special favors should be granted to her to come to this country ... the bed she lies in was of her own making.

Katman

30th August 2018, 20:47

Lets not also forget that the incident was reported about and investigated at the time.

The incident happened in 2007 and came to the public's attention in 2010 thanks to Manning.

Is three years later your idea of 'at the time'?

FJRider

30th August 2018, 20:52

Just on the principle that open mindedness is the way to learning the truth.

BULLSHIT ... The definition of open minded ... is a willingness to try new things or to hear and consider new ideas. An example of an open minded person is one who listens to their opponent in a debate to see if the information makes sense or if their opponent can change their mind.

Truth is a very long way from new ideas. New ideas don't make it the truth ... nor does believing something make it the truth.

husaberg

30th August 2018, 20:55

The incident happened in 2007 and came to the public's attention in 2010 thanks to Manning.

Is three years later your idea of 'at the time'?
You are as always, illiformed and are an idiot. Unless the public dont read the newspapers the next day in 2007.
ike the New York Times and the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2007/jul/13/rememberingthetworeutersst
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html

BAGHDAD, July 12 — Clashes in a southeastern neighborhood here between the American military and Shiite militias on Thursday left at least 16 people dead, including two Reuters journalists who had driven to the area to cover the turbulence, according to an official at the Interior Ministry.

The two Reuters staff members, both of them Iraqis, were killed when troops on an American helicopter shot into the area where the two had just gotten out of their car, said witnesses who spoke to an Agence France-Presse photographer who arrived at the scene shortly after their bodies were taken away.

Reuters is waiting for official comment on the reports that the men were killed by a US helicopter; if confirmed, these will be the third and fourth deaths of Reuters' journalists by "friendly" fire. Cameraman Waleed Khaled was shot by US troops in West Baghdad in 2005, and another cameraman, Mazen Dana, was shot by troops in 2003 outside Abu Ghraib.
Oh here is the 2007 investigations as well
https://web.archive.org/web/20131020142823/https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf
It wasnt the first case as it wont be the last case of freindly fire deaths
http://www.thebaron.info/people/memorial-book/mazen-dana

Katman

30th August 2018, 21:59

Unless the public dont read the newspapers the next day in 2007.
ike the New York Times and the Guardian

Fair enough. Let's go back to the video then.

The video that the authorities tried to hide for three years.

I'm sure you'll say it was to spare the feelings of the families of the journalists but frankly, I don't think the American authorities give a fuck about the families of two Iraqi journalists.

They wanted it hidden for their own purposes.

husaberg

30th August 2018, 23:14

Fair enough. Let's go back to the video then.

The video that the authorities tried to hide for three years.

I'm sure you'll say it was to spare the feelings of the families of the journalists but frankly, I don't think the American authorities give a fuck about the families of two Iraqi journalists.

They wanted it hidden for their own purposes.

Yet It wasnt hidden it wasn't even classified according to Bradley,,, so thats another Fail on your behalf.
Reuters were actually shown a portion of the video on July 25th 2007.

Plus I have already said the publication of the video is likely not what the families wanted so its hardly a big stretch to say "you are sure i will say that" uri gellar

the only thing wikileaks added was the release of the video of the people getting killed which i am sure the families would rather not have had broadcast.

If you had bothered to read the US investigation that was conducted straight after the incident you would have noticed that one of the outcomes was it was suggested that combat reporters make their presence known to the US military and that they wear colored vests to identify them.

But lets get something straight about the incident
WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. ... The Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body. WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG

They also didnt show how the helicopters were fired upon with rifles and rpgs prior by people in similar clothing in the same vicinity mere minutes before, which is why the combat reporters went there in the first place.

WikiLeaks also released a version that didn't call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric Collateral Murder." The New York Times reported that "Critics contend that the shorter video was misleading because it did not make clear that the attacks took place amid clashes in the neighborhood and that one of the men was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade
Captain Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command stated that the airstrike video "gives you a limited perspective, [it] only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs. "Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat."Also, WikiLeaks "does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG". The Wikileaks edited video did not add arrows pointing to these men, nor did they label them, as was done with the men carrying cameras. WikiLeaks did, in fact, state "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video.] In an interview with Fox News Assange acknowledged that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons". He explained, "based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything. ...

According to Harnden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian, "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation"

Graystone

31st August 2018, 06:26

Yet, you've advocated for the silencing of Speech that you consider 'wrong'.

And those examples are far from contrived, as a brief overview of history will attest.

I've advocated nothing of the sort.

History has a lot of things, the point remains, your need to show examples based on your value judgements about what is valid or invalid free speech show you don't really understand the concept.

Graystone

31st August 2018, 06:27

BULLSHIT ... The definition of open minded ... is a willingness to try new things or to hear and consider new ideas. An example of an open minded person is one who listens to their opponent in a debate to see if the information makes sense or if their opponent can change their mind.

Truth is a very long way from new ideas. New ideas don't make it the truth ... nor does believing something make it the truth.

Depends on your version of the truth I guess :laugh:

Katman

31st August 2018, 07:00

Yet It wasnt hidden it wasn't even classified according to Bradley,,, so thats another Fail on your behalf.
Reuters were actually shown a portion of the video on July 25th 2007.

That's right, and when they asked to see the full footage of the incident they were told they would have to lodge a request through the FOI process - which they did.

The request was denied.

The authorities wanted the footage to remain hidden.

husaberg

31st August 2018, 09:28

That's right, and when they asked to see the full footage of the incident they were told they would have to lodge a request through the FOI process - which they did.

The request was denied.

The authorities wanted the footage to remain hidden.
Yet they had showed the video to Reuters days after the incident and had claimed responsibility for the incident. They also investigated the incident this is all stuff you claimed never occurred.
this is hardly the activities of someone who tried to cover up an incident.
You further claimed the incident was never reported yet it clearly was with the military at the time claiming full responsibility
Note the military gave all the documents relating to the event to Reuters under the FOiA request.
The video was not given out for distribution to a news agency for reasons that are obvious to anyone other than you apparently.
If the Military wanted the footage to remain hidden it would have been destroyed, yet it never was.

Lets see thus far during the Iraq conflict
At least 117 journalists killed during the war were Iraqi, constituting about 85 percent of the overall toll. Iraqis constituted all but one of the 54 media support workers who were killed.
insurgent forces of one kind or another were responsible for the deaths of 110 journalists and 47 media workers. The actions of U.S. forces, including checkpoint shootings and airstrikes, were responsible for the deaths of 16 journalists and six media workers. Iraq military forces led by Saddam Hussein were responsible for the deaths of three journalists. Post-invasion Iraqi forces were responsible for the deaths of two journalists. Responsibility is unknown in the rest of the cases.
Journalists dying in war zones is not exactly new.

Fatalities in Iraq far surpass any other documented war-time death toll for the press. CPJ, founded in 1981, recorded the deaths of 58 journalists during the Algerian civil war from 1993 through 1996, another 54 fatalities in the undeclared civil conflict in Colombia, which began in 1986; and 36 deaths in the conflict in the Balkans from 1991 to 1995.
Freedom Forum (http://www.newseum.org/scripts/journalist/main.htm), a nonpartisan foundation dedicated to free press, has compiled lists of journalists killed in conflicts prior to 1981. The organization lists 89 journalists killed in the Central American conflicts from 1979 to 1989; a total of 98 killed in the Argentine conflict from 1976-1983; another 68 killed in World War II; and 66 killed in Vietnam from 1955 to 1975.
More recently, CPJ has documented the deaths of 35 journalists covering the Syrian (https://cpj.org/killed/mideast/syria/) civil war, a toll that includes a reporter who died across the border in Lebanon (https://cpj.org/killed/mideast/lebanon/), and a journalist injured in Syria who later died in Turkey (https://cpj.org/killed/europe/turkey/). The war in Afghanistan (https://cpj.org/killed/asia/afghanistan/) has taken the lives of 21 journalists from its beginning in 2001 until today.
In Syria, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, combat-related crossfire has accounted for a large proportion of deaths. But in Iraq, at least 92 journalists, or nearly two out of every three killed, did not die in airstrikes, checkpoint shootings, suicide bombings, sniper fire, or the detonation of improvised explosive devices. They were instead murdered in targeted assassinations in direct reprisal for their reporting. Many were targeted because of their affiliations with U.S. or Western news organizations, or their connections to news outlets seen as having sectarian connections.https://cpj.org/blog/2013/03/iraq-war-and-news-media-a-look-inside-the-death-to.php

I also noticed you havent commented on Wikileaks editing of the video and missing out confirming that two people were armed one with a AK47 and one with a RPG.
Why would they slow down portions of the video. plus edit out the bits prior.
If Wikileaks is about releasing the "truth" why is it they need to edit the video and miss out quite important bits like that?

Katman

31st August 2018, 10:03

The video was not given out for distribution to a news agency for reasons that are obvious to anyone other than you apparently.

And like I've already pointed out, I don't accept your suggestion that the American authorities didn't release the full footage because they didn't wish to upset the families of two dead Iraqi journalists.

They tried to keep it hidden simply because didn't want to risk public opinion turning any further against their illegal little war.

pritch

31st August 2018, 10:05

The definition of open minded ... is a willingness to try new things or to hear and consider new ideas.

There's not a Hell of a lot of that to be found on the Interwebs. :whistle:

husaberg

31st August 2018, 10:08

And like I've already pointed out, I don't accept your suggestion that the American authorities didn't release the full footage because they didn't wish to upset the families of two dead Iraqi journalists.

They tried to keep it hidden simply because didn't want to risk public opinion turning any further against their illegal little war.

I note you again fail to answer questions about Wikileaks editing the video and the people that were armed with a RPG and a AK47?
If wikileaks were aout releasing the truth why do they need to edit the video then.....?

Katman

31st August 2018, 10:21

I note you again fail to answer questions about Wikileaks editing the video and the people that were armed with a RPG and a AK47?
If wikileaks were aout releasing the truth why do they need to edit the video then.....?

Wikileaks didn't edit out the guys with the RPG and AK47. They're right there in the video that pritch posted a link to.

Wikileaks didn't try to hide anything.

husaberg

31st August 2018, 12:34

Wikileaks didn't edit out the guys with the RPG and AK47. They're right there in the video that pritch posted a link to.

Wikileaks didn't try to hide anything.
Funny The video pritch posted was an even more heavily edited 5 minute version created by Russia today.......
You are ill informed as ever but at least you are consistant.
http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage
Wikileaks first posted footage that had slowed down the footage with the cameras in it drew arrows and slow down the footage to focus on the the cameras but failed to point out the presence of the RGP and the AK47, this is editing. No mater what you may claim
the actually edited out about 50 mintues from the first version and have never posted the missing 30 minutes even in their later release they call the "full version."
Nor do they draw attention to the fact there is a missing 30 minutes in what they call the full version.

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

Why does wikileaks need to edit the video if all they are interested in showing the whole truth?
Why release a 17 minute even more heavily edited version first titled collateral murder

"It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events."
Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs.

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

Katman

31st August 2018, 12:53

Why does wikileaks need to edit the video if all they are interested in showing the whole truth?

Did you read the update at the end of the article you linked?

husaberg

31st August 2018, 13:09

Did you read the update at the end of the article you linked?
Does that give your answer to Why wikileaks edits videos and draws arrows to cameras and does not draw arrows to the AK47 and RPG.
then only releases edited versions....

ulian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

I do enjoy the way you ignore any and all evidence that doesn't suit your preconceived notions.
So now you go along with that it was Bradley that edited 20 minutes out of the video. But ignore Wikileaks unencripted and edited the video multiple times only ever posting edited versions.

especially considering

WikiLeaks has taken to Twitter to respond to Wired's story, stating it has no idea if Manning is really responsible for the leaked video or any other information.

But very hypocritical considering when the 911 commission held back a few pages for security reasons you went on and on about how it proves a coverup.
yet you readily accept of wikileaks never had the missing 30 minutes from the middle of the video. even though they are the ones who de-encrypted it in the first place.:laugh:

#Note the 20 minutes Wikileaks claims they never received in the middle of the video feed is according to the people that were their and all accounts of witnesses of the helicopters engaging a group of armed insurgents, and that some were seen entering a nearby building.

Katman

31st August 2018, 13:37

Does that give your answer to Why wikileaks edits videos and draws arrows to cameras and does not draw arrows to the AK47 and RPG.
then only releases edited versions....

I presume they drew the arrows to show which guys were the journalists.

That should have been fairly easy to work out - even for you.

husaberg

31st August 2018, 15:06

I presume they drew the arrows to show which guys were the journalists.

That should have been fairly easy to work out - even for you.

Your presumption was wrong they draw the arrows to the Camera of the reporters as well as the identity of the two reporters that were wrongly identified as insurgents. yet failed to draw arrows to the people that were clearly armed with an RPG and a AK47.
Siad w/camera and Namiar w/camera
They took the time to point out they were not armed, but made sure it was never pointed out that their companions clearly were.....

WikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.

Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred

The attack led to the death of two Reuters journalists, driver Saeed Chmagh, photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, and other Iraqi civilians. The official U.S. Army investigation report that followed the attack concludes that the death of the Reuters staffers and civilians was as a result of collateral damage of an engagement against Iraqi insurgents. However the released video and the associated radio chatter suggests that the army aviators had mistakenly identified the camera equipment used by the journalists as weapons, and the group of Iraqi civilians and journalists themselves were the target of the attack.
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_military_to_carry_out_review_following_Wikileak s_release_of_classified_2007_video

https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcmw.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcmw)r (https://imgflip.com/gif-maker)https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcwc.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcwc)

According to Harnden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian, "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation"

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs.

So i ask again if wikileaks were only intersted in the truth why did they edit the videos?

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

WikiLeaks said in the preface to one of their videos of the incident that "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video. Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word 'RPG' was ever used". Politifact states: "When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group—later allegedly identified by an internal army investigator as an AK-47, RPG rounds and 2 RPG launchers, one of which was loaded. Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence, I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything".

Fox News said that of the attack "WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. ... The Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body. WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG

Katman

31st August 2018, 19:01

Your presumption was wrong they draw the arrows to the Camera of the reporters as well as the identity of the two reporters that were wrongly identified as insurgents. yet failed to draw arrows to the people that were clearly armed with an RPG and a AK47.

That would be because the purpose of releasing the video was to show the two journalists being targeted and killed - hence why they identified which ones were the journalists.

It's not rocket science.

Grumph

31st August 2018, 19:16

That would be because the purpose of releasing the video was to show the two journalists being targeted and killed - hence why they identified which ones were the journalists.

It's not rocket science.

So which of the talks - Auckland or Wellington - are you going to attend ? I'd have thought that having Manning here - the person actually at the center of a "conspiracy" - would make you pee with excitement....

Katman

31st August 2018, 19:22

So which of the talks - Auckland or Wellington - are you going to attend ?

Neither.

Why would you assume I would be?

husaberg

31st August 2018, 19:24

That would be because the purpose of the video was to show the two journalists being targeted and killed - hence why they identified which ones were the journalists.

It's not rocket science.

If you were a rocket scientist you would know the purpose of the video is so that the US forces can see what their soldiers are doing.
The reason wikileaks, edited the video is so they can twist what happened to suit idiots with agendas.
As i have said and shown they purposely left pointing out adding the others were armed in a combat area by focusing and slowed down and pointing to their cameras of the two were not armed. whist ignoring the others.
they also claimed that no one else in the group was armed which they knew was false.

https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcmw.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcmw)r (https://imgflip.com/gif-maker)https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcwc.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcwc)

WikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.

Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred

The attack led to the death of two Reuters journalists, driver Saeed Chmagh, photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, and other Iraqi civilians. The official U.S. Army investigation report that followed the attack concludes that the death of the Reuters staffers and civilians was as a result of collateral damage of an engagement against Iraqi insurgents. However the released video and the associated radio chatter suggests that the army aviators had mistakenly identified the camera equipment used by the journalists as weapons, and the group of Iraqi civilians and journalists themselves were the target of the attack.
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_mili...ied_2007_video (https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_military_to_carry_out_review_following_Wikileak s_release_of_classified_2007_video)

You were that taken in by the video that you claimed that the incident was never reported at the time and that the US tried to sweep it under the carpet when it was clear it was reported in the media extensicvly when it occured and that the US claimed responsibility immediately.

Lets not also forget that the incident was reported about and investigated at the time.
the only thing wikileaks added was the release of the video of the peiople getting killed which i am sure the families would rather not have had broadcast.

The incident happened in 2007 and came to the public's attention in 2010 thanks to Manning.

Is three years later your idea of 'at the time'?

You are as always, illiformed and are an idiot. Unless the public dont read the newspapers the next day in 2007.
ike the New York Times and the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2007/jul/13/rememberingthetworeutersst
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html

Oh here is the 2007 investigations as well
https://web.archive.org/web/20131020142823/https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf
It wasnt the first case as it wont be the last case of freindly fire deaths
http://www.thebaron.info/people/memorial-book/mazen-dana
So i ask again if wikileaks were only interested in the truth why did they edit the videos?

Katman

31st August 2018, 19:29

IF you wetre a rocket scientist you would know the purpose of the video is so that the US forces can see what their soldiers are doing.

If you have a careful read of my post that you quoted, you'll see that I was talking about the purpose of releasing the video.

husaberg

31st August 2018, 20:03

If you have a careful read of my post that you quoted, you'll see that I was talking about the purpose of releasing the video.
So is that 6 or 7 times you have refused to answer the question as to why wikileaks edited the video and claimed no one in the video was armed?.........

https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcmw.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcmw)r (https://imgflip.com/gif-maker)https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcwc.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcwc)

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

WikiLeaks said in the preface to one of their videos of the incident that "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video. Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word 'RPG' was ever used". Politifact states: "When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group—later allegedly identified by an internal army investigator as an AK-47, RPG rounds and 2 RPG launchers, one of which was loaded. Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence, I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything".

Fox News said that of the attack "WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. ... The Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body. WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG

ccording to Harnden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian, "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation"

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

Katman

31st August 2018, 20:08

So is that 6 or 7 times you have refused to answer the question as to why wikileaks edited the video and claimed no one in the video was armed?.........

Where does Wikileaks claim that no-one in the video was armed?

husaberg

31st August 2018, 20:12

Where does Wikileaks claim that no-one in the video was armed?
So is that now 8 or 9 times
So is that 6 or 7 times you have refused to answer the question as to why wikileaks edited the video and claimed no one in the video was armed?.........

https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcmw.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcmw)r (https://imgflip.com/gif-maker)https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcwc.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcwc)

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

WikiLeaks said in the preface to one of their videos of the incident that "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video. Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word 'RPG' was ever used". Politifact states: "When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group—later allegedly identified by an internal army investigator as an AK-47, RPG rounds and 2 RPG launchers, one of which was loaded. Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence, I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything".

Fox News said that of the attack "WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. ... The Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body. WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG

ccording to Harnden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian, "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation"

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

its in about 2 of my posts and on the preface to the original video.

ikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.

Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred

The attack led to the death of two Reuters journalists, driver Saeed Chmagh, photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, and other Iraqi civilians. The official U.S. Army investigation report that followed the attack concludes that the death of the Reuters staffers and civilians was as a result of collateral damage of an engagement against Iraqi insurgents. However the released video and the associated radio chatter suggests that the army aviators had mistakenly identified the camera equipment used by the journalists as weapons, and the group of Iraqi civilians and journalists themselves were the target of the attack.
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_mili...ied_2007_video (https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_military_to_carry_out_review_following_Wikileak s_release_of_classified_2007_video)

Katman

31st August 2018, 20:17

its in about 2 of my posts and on the preface to the original video.

How about you just show us exactly where Wikileaks claims that no-one in the video was armed?

husaberg

31st August 2018, 20:19

How about you just show us exactly where Wikileaks claims that no-one in the video was armed?
To anyone else but you a unarmed group of adults would be that......

WikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.

Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred

The attack led to the death of two Reuters journalists, driver Saeed Chmagh, photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, and other Iraqi civilians. The official U.S. Army investigation report that followed the attack concludes that the death of the Reuters staffers and civilians was as a result of collateral damage of an engagement against Iraqi insurgents. However the released video and the associated radio chatter suggests that the army aviators had mistakenly identified the camera equipment used by the journalists as weapons, and the group of Iraqi civilians and journalists themselves were the target of the attack.

But its not the end of WIkileaks lies

The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killedhttps://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/
Yet they showed Reuters an excert of the video when it happened of the shooting video so thats a outright lie.
So does that makes it ten times you have failed to answer why wikileaks edited the video?

https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcmw.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcmw)r (https://imgflip.com/gif-maker)https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcwc.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcwc)

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

WikiLeaks said in the preface to one of their videos of the incident that "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video. Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word 'RPG' was ever used". Politifact states: "When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group—later allegedly identified by an internal army investigator as an AK-47, RPG rounds and 2 RPG launchers, one of which was loaded. Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence, I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything".

Fox News said that of the attack "WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. ... The Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body. WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG

ccording to Harnden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian, "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation"

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

Katman

31st August 2018, 20:27

Yet they showed Reuters an excert of the video when it happened of the shooting video so thats a outright lie.

They showed Reuters an excerpt of the video that ended before either journalist was shot.

When Reuters requested the full footage via the FOI process they were denied access to it.

husaberg

31st August 2018, 21:16

They showed Reuters an excerpt of the video that ended before either journalist was shot.

When Reuters requested the full footage via the FOI process they were denied access to it.
They showed Reuters a video of the events leading up to the second before they were shot showing them getting shot only impresses idiots.
Reuters have never said after seeing the edtited wikileaks video that the US had edited the video to manipulate the situation now have they?
Now is that 11 times you have failed to answer why it is that Wikileaks have edited the video?

https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcmw.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcmw)r (https://imgflip.com/gif-maker)https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcwc.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcwc)

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

WikiLeaks said in the preface to one of their videos of the incident that "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video. Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word 'RPG' was ever used". Politifact states: "When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group—later allegedly identified by an internal army investigator as an AK-47, RPG rounds and 2 RPG launchers, one of which was loaded. Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence, I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything".

Fox News said that of the attack "WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. ... The Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body. WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG

ccording to Harnden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian, "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation"

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

Grumph

31st August 2018, 21:21

Neither.

Why would you assume I would be?

Perhaps to actually ask a question.....Unless you feel that everything you've learned from the internet is sufficient for your purposes.

Katman

31st August 2018, 21:23

Now is that 11 times you have failed to answer why it is that Wikileaks have edited the video?

If you're still raving about the arrows in the video, I've already told you - they're identifying who the journalists are since the purpose of releasing the video was to show the journalists being targeted and killed.

How many times do you need to be told?

pritch

31st August 2018, 21:28

I get the impression that there may be a misunderstanding. The original Wikileaks clip was much longer and there were no names with dinky little arrows. There is now a lot of the original material missing and the extra graphic touches have been added.

The announcement that Manning is to be given a work visa was interesting, I particularly liked the statement, "She is unlikely to reoffend".

husaberg

31st August 2018, 21:29

If you're still raving about the arrows in the video, I've already told you - they're identifying who the journalists are since the purpose of releasing the video was to show the journalists being targeted and killed.

How many times do you need to be told?
You to answer the question they posted W/ Camera not just the name yet refused to point out the other with weapons RPG's and A AK47 they also slowed down the footage of the cameras and then there is the missing 50 minutes from the first video and 30 minutes from what they call the "full length video".
they never once said prior that the full video was missing 30 minutes from the middle.

They also said the group targeted was unarmed when it is clear they were armed people in the group.
Assange said himself they purposely did not tag that the people had weapons.

Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.

https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcmw.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcmw)r (https://imgflip.com/gif-maker)https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcwc.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcwc)

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

WikiLeaks said in the preface to one of their videos of the incident that "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video. Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word 'RPG' was ever used". Politifact states: "When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group—later allegedly identified by an internal army investigator as an AK-47, RPG rounds and 2 RPG launchers, one of which was loaded. Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence, I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything".

Fox News said that of the attack "WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. ... The Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body. WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG

ccording to Harnden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian, "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation"

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

Katman

31st August 2018, 21:45

They also said the group targeted was unarmed when it is clear they were armed people in the group.

Are you talking about the bit where they mention the van of unarmed people who arrived to try to save the wounded journalist?

And what's with the obsessive reposting of the gifs?

husaberg

31st August 2018, 21:53

Are you talking about the bit where they mention the van of unarmed people who arrived to try to save the wounded journalist?

And what's with the obsessive reposting of the gifs?

no i am talking about what wikileaks posted itn the video blub
it turns out i need to keep posting the gifs because you cant answer the questions about WIkileaks editing the videos slowing down portions and editing out complete sections and about the w/Camera but no W/ RPG and w/AK47
So whats that 13 times now must be almost a new record:rolleyes:
They also said the group targeted was unarmed when it is clear they were armed people in the group.
Assange said himself they purposely did not tag that the people had weapons.

Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.

https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcmw.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcmw)r (https://imgflip.com/gif-maker)https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcwc.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcwc)

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

WikiLeaks said in the preface to one of their videos of the incident that "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video. Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word 'RPG' was ever used". Politifact states: "When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group—later allegedly identified by an internal army investigator as an AK-47, RPG rounds and 2 RPG launchers, one of which was loaded. Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence, I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything".

Fox News said that of the attack "WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. ... The Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body. WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG

ccording to Harnden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian, "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation"

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

Katman

31st August 2018, 21:55

no i am talking about what wikileaks posted itn the video blub
it turns out i have to keep posting the gifs because you cant answer the queastions about WIkileaks editing the videos slowing down portions and editing out complete sections and about the w/Camera but no W/ RPG and w/AK47
SO whats that 13 times now:rolleyes:

Are you autistic?

husaberg

31st August 2018, 22:28

Are you autistic?
How many other people have you asked that this year Greystone, woodman, TDL, Hayden55 yokel, Bogan it turns out some of them just expect you to answer a question.

answer the questions about WIkileaks editing the videos slowing down portions and editing out complete sections and about the w/Camera but no W/ RPG and w/AK47?

They also said the group targeted was unarmed when it is clear they were armed people in the group?
Assange said himself they purposely did not tag that the people had weapons.

Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.

https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcmw.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcmw)r (https://imgflip.com/gif-maker)https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcwc.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcwc)

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

WikiLeaks said in the preface to one of their videos of the incident that "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video. Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word 'RPG' was ever used". Politifact states: "When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group—later allegedly identified by an internal army investigator as an AK-47, RPG rounds and 2 RPG launchers, one of which was loaded. Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence, I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything".

Fox News said that of the attack "WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. ... The Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body. WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG

ccording to Harnden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian, "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation"

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

Katman

31st August 2018, 22:45

How many other people have you asked that this year Greystone, woodman, TDL, Hayden55 yokel, Bogan it turns out some of them just expect you to answer a question.

Seriously dude, you have a mental disorder.

You should probably get some professional help.

husaberg

31st August 2018, 23:14

Seriously dude, you have a mental disorder.

You should probably get some professional help.
Yeah steve whatever you say.:msn-wink:
but if i ever find myself begging to have random dudes suck my cock and posting stupid conspiracies on KB i will be sure to seek some professional help......

So have you figured out a way of answering the question why Wikileaks edited the video that doesn't make you sound like a idiot for swallowing the whole unarmed cover up story yet?
When you do, Answer why did wikileaks edited the video remove 20 minutes and slowed down parts and then go on to identify the cameras but not the weapons in the party.ie w/Camera but no W/ RPG and w/AK47?
When according to them all they want to do is share the truth.

https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcmw.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcmw)r (https://imgflip.com/gif-maker)https://i.imgflip.com/2gxcwc.gif (https://imgflip.com/gif/2gxcwc)

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

WikiLeaks said in the preface to one of their videos of the incident that "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video. Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word 'RPG' was ever used". Politifact states: "When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group—later allegedly identified by an internal army investigator as an AK-47, RPG rounds and 2 RPG launchers, one of which was loaded. Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence, I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything".

Fox News said that of the attack "WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. ... The Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body. WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG

ccording to Harnden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian, "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation"

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

Voltaire

1st September 2018, 08:03

So my MSM/Herald/Seven Sharp take on it is:

Chelsea Manning who was employed by the US Govt in the Army leaked documents to Wikileaks which went viral, then was convicted of espionage, went to jail and was released thanks to then President Obama.
Australia says she can't come there as she has a criminal record.
NZ says she can come here.
The National party says she not be allowed in for the same reason as what Australia says.

Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern also are the speaking circuit but cancelled their event as the venue moved due to council intervention at the last moment and the owner of the Powerstation also pulled the plug.
The Govt and Mayor also expressed publicly their disapproval of them.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were also here on speaking tours recently. ( edited to correct the right Clinton)

Opinion: I'm thinking the last two have more blood on their hands the first 3.

Katman

1st September 2018, 08:17

Chelsea Clinton and Barack Obama were also here on speaking tours recently.

Opinion: I'm thinking the last two have more blood on their hands the first 3.

I'm assuming you mean Hillary Clinton.

But yes, you're absolutely right.

Voltaire

1st September 2018, 08:49

I'm assuming you mean Hilary Clinton.

But yes, you're absolutely right.

Opps...corrected, apart from spelling.

Perhaps there should be a place where speakers can speak, and on the other side of the large fence protesters can protest.

I wonder if the media realise they are a promotional tool.

oldrider

2nd September 2018, 09:13

Still free? - speakin free? :confused: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1035997455173799936 :shutup: - apparently not. :scratch: - free speech? :no:

pritch

2nd September 2018, 20:23

Still free? - speakin free? :confused: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1035997455173799936 :shutup: - apparently not. :scratch: - free speech? :no:

I was going to say that guy doesn't understand freedom of speech. I see a claim though that it's a fake account? It looks like his genuine account but...

Viking01

4th September 2018, 09:03

https://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/106775413/internet-society-fears-five-eyes-could-be-about-to-undermine-the-net

Voltaire

4th September 2018, 11:15

No mention of this on the tele or Herald other than the PM costing 80K in flying time.
Was a bit about not allowed to talk about the refugee camps.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/03/nauru-a-nation-on-the-cusp-of-democratic-calamity

Graystone

8th September 2018, 07:20

i.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/106898701/twitter-permanently-bans

The system works! :sunny:

TheDemonLord

8th September 2018, 14:07

i.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/106898701/twitter-permanently-bans

The system works! :sunny:

The only system at work here is the Left's attempt to prove the Right correct.

Banning Alex Jones (as much as I detest him) was the single dumbest thing they could have done.

Graystone

8th September 2018, 14:47

The only system at work here is the Left's attempt to prove the Right correct.

Banning Alex Jones (as much as I detest him) was the single dumbest thing they could have done.

That hate filled gas bag doesn't represent the right, and twitter doesn't represent the left.

Twitter simply decided the hatred and abuse he was spewing was against their terms of use and gave him the boot. Free speech still doesn't mean people can spew drivel from whatever forum they desire.

Katman

8th September 2018, 15:30

That hate filled gas bag doesn't represent the right, and twitter doesn't represent the left.

Just the same as your opinion represents nothing other than your opinion.

Graystone

8th September 2018, 15:40

Just the same as your opinion represents nothing other than your opinion.

Wow, that you feel that needed a dedicated post to point that out shows you're really struggling with this whole 'thinking for yourself' thing...

What's next? will you regail us with tales of how one plus one equals two? How the sky is blue? What pearls of wisdom shall dribble forth next :killingme

TheDemonLord

8th September 2018, 16:11

That hate filled gas bag doesn't represent the right, and twitter doesn't represent the left.

Twitter simply decided the hatred and abuse he was spewing was against their terms of use and gave him the boot. Free speech still doesn't mean people can spew drivel from whatever forum they desire.

The Right: "There exists an echo chamber within left-leaning companies who are banning anyone who is Right wing!"
The Left: "They can't say that! We must ban them!"

As for the terms of service - I see Sarah Jeong still has her Twitter account....

That argument only holds up if the Terms of Use are applied equally, which they clearly aren't.

Graystone

8th September 2018, 16:28

The Right: "There exists an echo chamber within left-leaning companies who are banning anyone who is Right wing!"
The Left: "They can't say that! We must ban them!"

As for the terms of service - I see Sarah Jeong still has her Twitter account....

That argument only holds up if the Terms of Use are applied equally, which they clearly aren't.

Grow up you fool. Left and right are not represented as your try to portray. Nor can you understand how the terms of use are applied.

TheDemonLord

8th September 2018, 17:30

Grow up you fool. Left and right are not represented as your try to portray. Nor can you understand how the terms of use are applied.

So why is there a Congressional hearing on it?

Or is that just a conspiracy too?

Twitter has openly vowed to "Ban the Nazis" - yet allows Antifa members (a domestic Terrorist group) to remain on the platform.

If Alex Jones has breached the Terms of Use, then so has Sarah Jeong - this is not an opinion, but an objective fact.

Alex gets banned, Sarah does not.

Why?

Because Sarah has the "correct" Politics and Alex does not.

Graystone

8th September 2018, 17:56

carbonhed

8th September 2018, 19:39

What a load of unsupported garbage.

Wow! Devastating and unsupported garbage comeback dude. :killingme

husaberg

8th September 2018, 20:49

So why is there a Congressional hearing on it?

Or is that just a conspiracy too?

Twitter has openly vowed to "Ban the Nazis" - yet allows Antifa members (a domestic Terrorist group) to remain on the platform.

If Alex Jones has breached the Terms of Use, then so has Sarah Jeong - this is not an opinion, but an objective fact.

Alex gets banned, Sarah does not.

Why?

Because Sarah has the "correct" Politics and Alex does not.

From what i have seen it looks like the Web based media has finally come under the broadcasting standards of the countries the outlets operate in
Ie before you could set up a youtube channel and pretty much say what ever you wish but if you did the ssame on Prime or TVNZ or Sky you would be held to account of broadcasting standards of having to provide factual balanced information.
Anyone who has watch a few seconds of Infowars can attest its a echo chamber of conspiracy theories that is presented as being factual.

TheDemonLord

8th September 2018, 21:27

What a load of unsupported garbage.

Yeah... I'd give that retort some credence, if you hadn't already proved my point with your "The system works" rejoicing...

But seeing as you asked https://pastebin.com/4ceVFHqS.

How's the system working out for those accounts?

TheDemonLord

8th September 2018, 21:35

From what i have seen it looks like the Web based media has finally come under the broadcasting standards of the countries the outlets operate in
Ie before you could set up a youtube channel and pretty much say what ever you wish but if you did the ssame on Prime or TVNZ or Sky you would be held to account f broadcasting standards of having to provide factual information.

Can you show me where that bit of legislation was passed?

I think you are missing the point of that debate:

If Twitter/Facebook etc. are going to have an editorial oversight (whether explicitly or an internal department that performs the same function) then they can be liable for the content posted on their platforms like other more traditional media outlets have.

This is key because the traditional defense of these companies has been "We just provide the platform, we don't have any control over the usage", but the actions taken by Silicon Valley look more and more like editing, which means they no longer have that defence. Which opens them up for lawsuits and legal action.

Anyone who has watch a few seconds of Infowars can attest its a echo chamber of conspiracy theories that is presented as being factual.

Entirely irrelevant. I can't stand Alex and his content, however a large part of his schtick was that powerful organizations are working together for their own nefarious purposes, are screwing over the little guy to do so and are going to be coming after Him for 'exposing' it.

And then those big Organizations all decide to ban him within 8 hours of each other...

Talk about vindicating a nut job...

Whereas the correct response should have been to steadfastly and vocally defend Alex Jones as having a right to be on the platform - whilst stating a disagreement with his message - which would disprove his claim.

husaberg

8th September 2018, 21:51

Can you show me where that bit of legislation was passed?

I think you are missing the point of that debate:

If Twitter/Facebook etc. are going to have an editorial oversight (whether explicitly or an internal department that performs the same function) then they can be liable for the content posted on their platforms like other more traditional media outlets have.

This is key because the traditional defense of these companies has been "We just provide the platform, we don't have any control over the usage", but the actions taken by Silicon Valley look more and more like editing, which means they no longer have that defence. Which opens them up for lawsuits and legal action.

Entirely irrelevant. I can't stand Alex and his content, however a large part of his schtick was that powerful organizations are working together for their own nefarious purposes, are screwing over the little guy to do so and are going to be coming after Him for 'exposing' it.

And then those big Organizations all decide to ban him within 8 hours of each other...

Talk about vindicating a nut job...

Whereas the correct response should have been to steadfastly and vocally defend Alex Jones as having a right to be on the platform - whilst stating a disagreement with his message - which would disprove his claim.

I dont think its in our legislation or anyone persay i thing the legal teams have noted there is a threat to the businesses.

After YouTube drew controversy for giving top billing to videos promoting when people did breaking-news queries during the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, YouTube changed its algorithm to give greater prominence to mainstream media sources.

In 2017, it was revealed that advertisements were being placed on extremist videos, including videos by rape apologists, anti-Semites and hate preachers who received ad payouts.[278] After firms started to stop advertising on YouTube in the wake of this reporting, YouTube apologized and said that it would give firms greater control over where ads got placed
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-youtube-drives-viewers-to-the-internets-darkest-corners-1518020478
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/social-media-companies-join-to-fight-against-terrorist-content.html
https://www.socialmedialawbulletin.com/2018/02/update-social-media-anti-terrorism-act/
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/15790034/france-uk-social-media-fine-terrorism-may-macron
Also the courts in Multiple countries have reconised social media is Media (ie AKA's posting on FB breaching court orders)
Youtube has put a lot of work into controlling what goes on their site.
They have pretty clear rules regarding hate speech etc.
Over here we have had the whole megauploads crap and its been the legal process that has made people who own sites are accountable for what happens on them.
As for jones vs whoever the other one is i think it comes down to who is attracting the complaints.
Jones has a long history on twitter for breaching the sites rules.
The sites are businesses that rely on advertising if a person is bad for business they tend to get removed.

Graystone

9th September 2018, 04:06

Yeah... I'd give that retort some credence, if you hadn't already proved my point with your "The system works" rejoicing...

But seeing as you asked https://pastebin.com/4ceVFHqS.

How's the system working out for those accounts?

Actually, what I implicitly asked for was you to support your previous post. The most 'detail' you provided in that was the banning of one muppet but not another...

The system works because Alex was banned for his drivelous and hate filling invective, not his political stance. Please stop making the false equivalence that these are the same.

TheDemonLord

9th September 2018, 21:41

Actually, what I implicitly asked for was you to support your previous post. The most 'detail' you provided in that was the banning of one muppet but not another...

The system works because Alex was banned for his drivelous and hate filling invective, not his political stance. Please stop making the false equivalence that these are the same.

So why haven't any of those accounts on that link been banned?

and therein lies the issue.

I can point to multiple left wing verified accounts, with tweets that are clearly as much a breach of the ToS that Alex Jones is claimed to have made - and yet... they are all still active...

So why is that? And before you ask, yes Twitter has been made aware of those accounts.

Graystone

10th September 2018, 02:56

So why haven't any of those accounts on that link been banned?

and therein lies the issue.

I can point to multiple left wing verified accounts, with tweets that are clearly as much a breach of the ToS that Alex Jones is claimed to have made - and yet... they are all still active...

So why is that? And before you ask, yes Twitter has been made aware of those accounts.

Perhaps you should start by identifying the actual reason Alex was banned, rather than jumping to conclusions...

TheDemonLord

10th September 2018, 09:27

Perhaps you should start by identifying the actual reason Alex was banned, rather than jumping to conclusions...

Way to dodge the point - which is that those on that list I've posted are clearly in breach of the ToS, yet their accounts are still active and verified.

Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban, so where is the bans for the people on that list?

And that's the bit you have to contend with: They have a self-declared left wing bias. They are happy to ban unsavory right-wing characters and reluctant to ban unsavory left-wing characters.

This means that the ToS is not an equal set of rules, to be applied without prejudice - but a thin justification for them to get rid of people they don't like. That last point is rather salient because that is now the actions of an editorial board and if Twitter is making editorial decisions, then they can be held accountable for the content on their platform.

Graystone

10th September 2018, 17:06

Way to dodge the point - which is that those on that list I've posted are clearly in breach of the ToS, yet their accounts are still active and verified.

Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban, so where is the bans for the people on that list?

And that's the bit you have to contend with: They have a self-declared left wing bias. They are happy to ban unsavory right-wing characters and reluctant to ban unsavory left-wing characters.

This means that the ToS is not an equal set of rules, to be applied without prejudice - but a thin justification for them to get rid of people they don't like. That last point is rather salient because that is now the actions of an editorial board and if Twitter is making editorial decisions, then they can be held accountable for the content on their platform.

Isn't it your point, that others were not banned yet they did they same thing as the guy that was? Seems to me it only logical to compare what they did. Not from your perspective and your interpretation of the ToS but from the company's interpretation. Unless of course they didn't do the same thing...

TheDemonLord

10th September 2018, 17:25

Not from your perspective and your interpretation of the ToS but from the company's interpretation.

Thank you for entirely proving my point.

Couldn't have described it more succinctly.

husaberg

10th September 2018, 17:54

Way to dodge the point - which is that those on that list I've posted are clearly in breach of the ToS, yet their accounts are still active and verified.

Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban, so where is the bans for the people on that list?

And that's the bit you have to contend with: They have a self-declared left wing bias. They are happy to ban unsavory right-wing characters and reluctant to ban unsavory left-wing characters.

This means that the ToS is not an equal set of rules, to be applied without prejudice - but a thin justification for them to get rid of people they don't like. That last point is rather salient because that is now the actions of an editorial board and if Twitter is making editorial decisions, then they can be held accountable for the content on their platform.
Can you categorically attest with 100% accuracy that others have had the same number of complaints and warnings about their behavior and breached the site rules as Alex jones appears to have.
If you cant do this you cant compare them and say one is being treated differently.

https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/youtube-alex-jones-ban-1202896074/
https://twitter.com/slpng_giants?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweete mbed%7Ctwterm%5E1026467934506504193&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvariety.com%2F2018%2Fdigital %2Fnews%2Fyoutube-alex-jones-ban-1202896074%2F
https://www.recode.net/2018/9/3/17813124/sleeping-giants-breitbart-advertising-matt-rivitz-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast
clever
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dml-dD3UcAARiJ6.jpg:large

Graystone

10th September 2018, 17:59

Thank you for entirely proving my point.

Couldn't have described it more succinctly.

Now that, is dodging the point! The fact remains that the list of other muppets you listed that still have their accounts have not violated the ToS to the same extent as Alex Jones, thus your original point is well and truly dickered.

husaberg

10th September 2018, 19:22

To be clear, Facebook, Spotify, YouTube, and Apple are all private companies, and legally have the right to ban any entity from their platforms, including Jones. As Marissa Lang wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Blocked-and-banned-by-social-media-When-is-it-9193998.php) in August 2016:
As private companies, social networks are not required to adhere to the First Amendment. They set their own rules and retain the right to moderate content, routinely screening it for instances of gratuitous violence, harassment, profanity and other offensive material.

More recently, Jones has been embroiled in a series of lawsuits filed by people about whom he has made repeated false assertions, like Marcel Fontaine: Infowars declared him to be the shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (despite the fact that Fontaine had never even visited the state of Florida). There’s also Leonard Pozner, the father of a Sandy Hook victim, Noah Pozner, whose family has endured endless harassment by followers of Jones who believe that Pozner’s son never existed.

Jones and his various sites are leading purveyors of violent and sometimes racist (and anti-Semitic) conspiracy theories. The tech companies say they blocked Infowars not because of the conspiracy theories, but because, in Spotify’s words, Infowars “expressly and principally promotes, advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group or individual based on characteristics.”

Facebook said they were shutting down several of Jones’s pages for “glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.”

Apple said in a statement to BuzzFeed News, “Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users,” adding, “podcasts that violate these guidelines are removed from our directory.”

TheDemonLord

10th September 2018, 20:21

Now that, is dodging the point! The fact remains that the list of other muppets you listed that still have their accounts have not violated the ToS to the same extent as Alex Jones, thus your original point is well and truly dickered.

Can you point to where in the Terms of Service it defines the extent needed to have ones account terminated?

You can't?

Well, that would mean that it's solely up to the company to use their disgression which is informed by their self-declared biases.

I'll again point you to things like this: https://twitter.com/antifachecker?lang=en

Now compare this - Alex Jones, for all his blow hard antics - was he ever declared a Domestic Terrorist organization?

Cause regardless of whatever backflips you are attempting to pull, I'm pretty sure that being part of a Terrorist group would be against the ToS...

TheDemonLord

10th September 2018, 20:24

Can you categorically attest with 100% accuracy that others have had the same number of complaints and warnings about their behavior and breached the site rules as Alex jones appears to have.
If you cant do this you cant compare them and say one is being treated differently.

https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/youtube-alex-jones-ban-1202896074/
https://twitter.com/slpng_giants?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweete mbed%7Ctwterm%5E1026467934506504193&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvariety.com%2F2018%2Fdigital %2Fnews%2Fyoutube-alex-jones-ban-1202896074%2F
https://www.recode.net/2018/9/3/17813124/sleeping-giants-breitbart-advertising-matt-rivitz-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast
clever

Is it a breach of the ToS if one person complains?
Or 10?
Or 100?
Or 1000?
Or is it a breach of the ToS if it's a breach of the ToS?

And for the record - that list has been viewed by Twitter (since they temporarily suspended the account bluecheckwatch then re-instated it, which most likely requires a manual intervention).

Again - If the ruleset was being applied equally to all, then we wouldn't have an issue.

FJRider

10th September 2018, 20:34

They set their own rules and retain the right to moderate content, routinely screening it for instances of gratuitous violence, harassment, profanity and other offensive material.

Case in point ... Kiwibiker.

TheDemonLord

10th September 2018, 20:35

[INDENT]To be clear, Facebook, Spotify, YouTube, and Apple are all private companies, and legally have the right to ban any entity from their platforms, including Jones. As Marissa Lang wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Blocked-and-banned-by-social-media-When-is-it-9193998.php) in August 2016:[INDENT]As private companies, social networks are not required to adhere to the First Amendment. They set their own rules and retain the right to moderate content, routinely screening it for instances of gratuitous violence, harassment, profanity and other offensive material.

That's not so clear cut - as Trumps Twitter account was declared a public space, which meant he's no longer able to block people on Twitter (as this would violate "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")

Secondly, you have the issue of their defense against being held accountable for the content on their platform - which is they aren't editorializing it. However, applying the rules to one group (or set of groups) whilst not applying it to another is Editorializing.

Thirdly, these companies have at multiple times, declared their support for Free Speech - as this is inline with American principles and ideals, yet their actions have a bias.

Finally, these technologies present emergent problems - Trumps Twitter is perhaps the best example of this - he has a direct line to the voters, unfiltered, unsanitized. Amongst these companies is a large amount of political discourse happening, especially with the younger generation - it is fulfilling the modern day equivalent of Speakers Corner. Which now leaves us with a quandary - if these ubiquitous Internet services are the place where political discussion is being had, then it should be protected against censorship. We then have to weigh that against the principle that a Company should be free to conduct it's affairs (so long as they are lawful) however it sees fit. We do have precedents were standards have been mandated by the Government on industries, but these must be carefully considered, discussed and debated.

husaberg

10th September 2018, 20:37

Is it a breach of the ToS if one person complains?
Or 10?
Or 100?
Or 1000?
Or is it a breach of the ToS if it's a breach of the ToS?

And for the record - that list has been viewed by Twitter (since they temporarily suspended the account bluecheckwatch then re-instated it, which most likely requires a manual intervention).

Again - If the ruleset was being applied equally to all, then we wouldn't have an issue.
you never answered my question..........
You cant say its not be applied the same if you cant answer the question

husaberg

10th September 2018, 20:40

That's not so clear cut - as Trumps Twitter account was declared a public space, which meant he's no longer able to block people on Twitter (as this would violate "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")

Secondly, you have the issue of their defense against being held accountable for the content on their platform - which is they aren't editorializing it. However, applying the rules to one group (or set of groups) whilst not applying it to another is Editorializing.

Thirdly, these companies have at multiple times, declared their support for Free Speech - as this is inline with American principles and ideals, yet their actions have a bias.

Finally, these technologies present emergent problems - Trumps Twitter is perhaps the best example of this - he has a direct line to the voters, unfiltered, unsanitized. Amongst these companies is a large amount of political discourse happening, especially with the younger generation - it is fulfilling the modern day equivalent of Speakers Corner. Which now leaves us with a quandary - if these ubiquitous Internet services are the place where political discussion is being had, then it should be protected against censorship. We then have to weigh that against the principle that a Company should be free to conduct it's affairs (so long as they are lawful) however it sees fit. We do have precedents were standards have been mandated by the Government on industries, but these must be carefully considered, discussed and debated.
Its very clear cut its their site, if they deem someone is not in their best interests to have as a member, its is within their right to remove them.

s private companies, social networks are not required to adhere to the First Amendment. They set their own rules and retain the right to moderate content, routinely screening it for instances of gratuitous violence, harassment, profanity and other offensive material.

Nothing you can do or say can change that............
The trump twitter is different hes a public official using it as an official information source

Peaceful public speech and demonstrations in those venues cannot be stopped based on what is being said without a compelling government interest. Twitter, however, is not a real-world space. And it’s run by a private company.
The judge’s ruling found, however, that the company has less control over the @realDonaldTrump account than Trump himself and White House social media director Dan Scavino – also a public official. Their power includes the ability to block people from seeing the account’s tweets, and “from participating in the interactive space associated with the tweets,” in the form of replies and comments on Twitter’s platform.
Also key was the fact that the @realDonaldTrump account is used for governmental purposes. Specifically, the judge found that “the President presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President” – such as announcing the appointments and terminations of government officials.