Freedom of speech

[clive milne]

Can't believe I forgot operation Northwoods... add that little champ to the list as well.

[JA]

^Engineered for Change

Best
JA

[clive milne]

^Yep

Hegelian social engineering 101... precipitating change by way of inducing fear,
the definition of terrorism.

[clive milne]

When your done there,
do some background research on these guys:

Patrick Tillman
Serena Shim
Danny Cosolaro
Gary Webb
DC Madame
Lt. Col. Marshall A. Gutierrez
Charles D. Riechers
Col. Theodore S. Westhusing
General Dave Petraeus
Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil
Darleen Druyun
Clifford Baxter
David Kelly
James Hatfield
Margie Schoedinger
Danny Jowenko
Cliff Baxter
Paul Wellstone
Hale Boggs
David Kelly
Nick Begich
Brandy Britton (and her attorneys: william Blackford & Chris Flohr)
Tahir Elci
Raymond Lemme
Paul Sanford
Andrew Collins
PFC LaVena Johnson
Frank Olson
Sgt Terry Yeakey OK City officer
Seal Team 6
Sen. John Tower, Sen. John Heinz, Ron Brown

And then we'll have a frank and honest discussion about the consequences of speaking freely (when you know too much).

or...

maybe not.

[xelasnave]

Hi Clive
Doesn't the fact we can google each of these matters point to a certain freedom of speech?

Alex

[JA]

^Sure if you don't mind going in to that little black book...

Hi Alex, ....... I'm only half kidding.

Best
JA

[clive milne]

My personal favourite is Garry Webb...

Impressive guy.

Proves that the CIA is the biggest importer of Cocaine to the US.
Publishes the structure of the criminal network in the main stream media...

Shoots himself in the head (twice) in a pique of remorse... and stuff...

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Hi Clive
Doesn't the fact we can google each of these matters point to a certain freedom of speech?

Alex

No Alex..

Google actively deflects search strings.

It's at the very core of their business model.

Shaping public perception for profit.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by clive milne

No Alex..

Google actively deflects search strings.

It's at the very core of their business model.

Shaping public perception for profit.

I have read some.of the "matters" you refer to a long time ago...
I can't say anything seemed hidden.
And if one was to take what is written, seemingly very damning ...again does the existence of such material hint at freedom of speech being dead?

You.would think anyone.writing on these.matters would disappear.

Why have you been left alone ...given you point the finger..

Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by JA

^Sure if you don't mind going in to that little black book...

Hi Alex, ....... I'm only half kidding.

Best
JA

I am a harmless fool with one foot in the grave hopefully no one would waste ink or paper to record the nonsense I come.out with...

Alex

[jeff65 (Jeff)]

Great list Clive, quite a few new to me.

Alex,

We can discuss these matters because they have passed and few cared. Many of the people in Clive's list were trying to inform about these sketchy matters and did disappear. They had sources or first hand experience and were more credible and likely to be taken seriously than a few astro-nuts on a discussion board.

[N1 (Mirko)]

Originally Posted by Kunama

Do we really want a society where everyone can express their views without consequences?

I imagine that when this site was created it was done with a view to give people interested in astronomy a place to share the experiences as they relate to this passion, hobby, obsession or pastime that is astronomy.

There are plenty of platforms for those keen on discussing subjects that are outside the terms of service of this site. As I see it the admin and moderators of this site give a mile when even when sometimes the TOS state that an inch is the limit.

Politics, religion and other subjects that are discussed here ad nauseum often end up causing disharmony among the members and do nothing to encourage site visitors to stay.

"We" worry about the right to speak freely and our privacy but then detail our lives on FaceLook, Twatter, etc..... Privacy is a horse that bolted a long time ago, just be glad that the lives of most of us are so boring that the criminal element, who have no qualms about hacking into our lives, have no interest in you and that the law enforcement bodies, though hamstrung by privacy legislation, are still attempting to keep us safe.

EDIT: As usual your mileage may vary

G'day Matt, I think what concerns many who see their privacy in danger is the fact that neither you, me, or anybody else can guarantee that "law enforcement" bodies will always act in your best interest, or even that of the greater community, just because that may be the case today. Likewise, you don't know what aspect of your "boring" life might be considered a threat at some point.

Originally Posted by Kunama

"We" worry about the right to speak freely and our privacy but then detail our lives on FaceLook, Twatter, etc..... Privacy is a horse that bolted a long time ago...

I beg to differ. People who "worry about the right to speak freely and our privacy" are a different group to people who detail their "lives on FaceLook, Twatter, etc..... ". The argument that "Privacy is a horse that bolted a long time ago" only stands up by lumping these fairly incompatible groups together ("We"). Privacy protection should not be given up just because some don't care about it.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Freedom of speech? Whats that? Certainly being curtailed in this country at a great rate of knots. When the govt wants to socially engineer a point of view, they first make expression of a contrary viewpoint illegal, or do their very best to shoot the messenger...

Bingo. Create a label, engineering a view, by forcing dissenters to prove "I am not a ... " Then have a look at how you can exploit it.
Property developers have made an absolute fortune by getting the government to do this for them.

[Visionary (David)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

There aren't serious repercussions for most things - just lots of lefty media attacks, twitter attacks, Facebook attacks on behalf of or on the the part of professional offence takers. Water off a ducks back to people like Corey Bernardi, David Leyonhjelm, Pauline Hanson and especially to Donald Trump.

But the interesting case was the Adam Goodes incident, where a 14 year old girl was detained by Police, and then made a mockery of by the entire media. Something which I doubt the Police had the power to do, and where the media violated every law applicable to youth offenders (like the Sudanese gangs running amok in Melbourne). Plainly they could do so, because she wasn't really an offender against any law, and couldn't have been charged with anything.

Oh, and I forgot about the one example where you are 100% correct, namely the odd case of the ACT, where they now have blasphemy laws for anyone who offends Islam (but they haven't charged Pauline Hanson with anything yet).
Regards,
Renato

Renato,

You can't be serious, there are blasphemy laws in the ACT that specifically cover blasphemy against Islam? What if.... there was an Islamic version of a "Pissed Christ" displayed in an ACT Gallery? What would be the ramifications of such a display and would a prosecution result?

David

[Octane (Humayun)]

David, there are none. There are religious vilification laws, though; but, nothing specifically relating to "anyone who offends Islam".

H

[Boozlefoot]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I am a harmless fool with one foot in the grave hopefully no one would waste ink or paper to record the nonsense I come.out with...

Alex

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!.......................

[Visionary (David)]

Originally Posted by Octane

David, there are none. There are religious vilification laws, though; but, nothing specifically relating to "anyone who offends Islam".

H

Thanks for the clarification.

David