All posts filed under: free speech2

WATCH: Problem Reaction Solution: Internet Censorship Edition

In episode 344 of The Corbett Report, James discusses the new push to shut down alternative voices on the internet. Links, sources, show notes and an audio-only version can be found here. Don’t be an idiot! The government is NOT going to be the neutral arbiters of the internet and the big tech companies are NOT monopolies unless YOU forfeit your responsibility and use their controlled platforms. The answers to the social media crackdown are already here and it is your choice whether the alternatives that already exist thrive or die. It’s up to you. Choose wisely.

Mark Curtis launches “Declassified”

Mark Curtis writes I am about to publish on this site hundreds of UK declassified documents and articles on British foreign policy towards various countries. This will be the first time such a collection has been brought together online. The declassified documents, mainly from the UK’s National Archives, reveal British policy-makers actual concerns and priorities from the 1940s until the present day, from the ‘horse’s mouth’, as it were: these files are often revelatory and provide an antidote to the often misleading and false mainstream media (and academic) coverage of Britain’s past and present foreign policies. The documents include my collections of files, accumulated over many years and used as a basis for several books, on episodes such as the UK’s covert war in Yemen in the 1960s, the UK’s support for the Pinochet coup in Chile, the UK’s ‘constitutional coup’ in Guyana, the covert wars in Indonesia in the 1950s, the UK’s backing for wars against the Iraqi Kurds in the 1960s, the coup in Oman in 1970, support for the Idi Amin takeover …

Free speech, censorship & the right to be wrong…

Do we have a responsibility to silence views we consider morally repugnant or simply untrue? Claims that the Holocaust didn’t happen are insane and revolting. Should we prevent people from airing those views? Refuse to debate with them? Should we declare that some opinions do not deserve to be heard?