|
Post by Gort on Jan 17, 2021 9:47:51 GMT 10
Maybe I was mistaken, but I thought that one of the issues with Parler was that members were offering their accounts to Trump as a workaround to the Twitter and Facebook bans on Trump?
I believe that Facebook and Twitter also shut down accounts that were being repurposed for Trump?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 17, 2021 10:53:51 GMT 10
For someone decrying the apparent exaggeration of COVID you certainly aren't adverse to exaggerating the impact of shutting down Parler on the Apple and Google App Stores. Nobody has shut down conservative speech Spork, Parler is still there. You just can't download the App for it on the Apple App Store or the Google App Store. So how do you come to the conclusion that it's been shut down? At least we agree on the exaggeration of Covid.😁 ...And you are misinformed. After Parler was removed by Apple and Google, Amazon removed it from their servers. The very server that they depend on to stay on the internet. You can't download it period, thanks to the bully trio who perceived them as a threat to the narrative. They that are the unquestioned gate keepers to all internet information has thus slammed the door on free speech. You can't say anything, unless big tech approves. Welcome to Orwell's 1984, and our 2021. ..and do you really think that they are going to stop there?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 17, 2021 11:07:32 GMT 10
Maybe I was mistaken, but I thought that one of the issues with Parler was that members were offering their accounts to Trump as a workaround to the Twitter and Facebook bans on Trump? I believe that Facebook and Twitter also shut down accounts that were being repurposed for Trump? The 'tweet' Trump was removed for was advising his supporters to stand down and to consider a peaceful resolution to their disagreement. The second one, was simply to state he would not be attending the inauguration. Yep. Definitely hate Speech and worthy of a banning. Good job Twitter 👏
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Jan 17, 2021 11:12:58 GMT 10
Maybe I was mistaken, but I thought that one of the issues with Parler was that members were offering their accounts to Trump as a workaround to the Twitter and Facebook bans on Trump? I believe that Facebook and Twitter also shut down accounts that were being repurposed for Trump? The 'tweet' Trump was removed for was advising his supporters to stand down and to consider a peaceful resolution to their disagreement. The second one, was simply to state he would not be attending the inauguration. Yep. Definitely hate Speech and worthy of a banning. Good job Twitter 👏 It's all about context ... Permanent suspension of @realdonaldtrumpBy Twitter Inc. Friday, 8 January 2021 After close review of recent Tweets from the @realdonaldtrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open. However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement. The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case. OverviewOn January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realdonaldtrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service. AssessmentWe assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. This determination is based on a number of factors, including:President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th. The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending. The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol. The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election. Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021. As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so. blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.htmlOf course, the lead up had context too... Trump: 'We won this election, and we won it by a landslide' 'We will stop the steal' 'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen' 'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore' Rudy Giuliani: 'We will have Trial By Combat'
|
|
|
Post by bender on Jan 17, 2021 12:19:35 GMT 10
For someone decrying the apparent exaggeration of COVID you certainly aren't adverse to exaggerating the impact of shutting down Parler on the Apple and Google App Stores. Nobody has shut down conservative speech Spork, Parler is still there. You just can't download the App for it on the Apple App Store or the Google App Store. So how do you come to the conclusion that it's been shut down? At least we agree on the exaggeration of Covid.😁 ...And you are misinformed. After Parler was removed by Apple and Google, Amazon removed it from their servers. The very server that they depend on to stay on the internet. You can't download it period, thanks to the bully trio who perceived them as a threat to the narrative. They that are the unquestioned gate keepers to all internet information has thus slammed the door on free speech. You can't say anything, unless big tech approves. Welcome to Orwell's 1984, and our 2021. ..and do you really think that they are going to stop there? No Spork, once again you are mistaken, indeed delusional was the first word that came to mind when I read your post. I do not agree that the danger COVID has been exaggerated. That belief on your part is unfounded and quite simply false. If Amazon blocked Parler from their servers that does not mean they are gagged. They can set up their own servers, they can rent space on someone willing to let them use theirs. Once again you don't appear to have a grasp on the facts.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 17, 2021 13:04:35 GMT 10
Trump was espousing hate speech, free speech doesn't involve lying and misinformation...wrong is wrong there is no right in it.
Conclude Sporko does not have a grip on what free speech actually entails.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 17, 2021 18:04:16 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 17, 2021 19:00:30 GMT 10
We are not talking about 'every day conservative speech' (unless you are putting across the point that every day conservative speech is actually hateful and nasty). We are talking about horrifying death threats, incitement to violence, sedition, and pushing dangerous misinformation. Now, if you are going to say that is 'everyday conservative speech', then that says a lot about conservatives that that is how they talk in their daily life. People are not banned for expressing an opinion that goes against normal narrative. They are banned for making death threats, inciting violence, encouraging sedition and pushing dangerous misinformation. Most conservatives on twitter haven't been banned. Why is that? Because they don't engage in the above behaviour. So by that same token, would you shut down an entire library for having a copy of 'Mein Kampf', because it inspires hate groups like Neo Nazis? When does the subsequent book burning begin? I love how the left supports free speech... for themselves. You are being deliberately disingenuous. No one would need to shut down Parler if they were actively doing the right thing to stop the planning of bombings and terrorism. I bet you would demand they do that if it were Muslims planning it. If you do the right thing, you don't get shut down. How amazing is that? And I love how you present middle of the road or centrists or even those who are right-of-centre are 'left'. Well, I guess I am left, compared to you. I guess the majority of people are left compared to you. That should cause you some reflection. Noted also, is your inability to respond to any of my previous posts, especially the content of that image I uploaded, and how you square that and Parler's inability and unwillingness to delete that post with your 'Christian' views. So, you either can't, and you know it, or you won't. One or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 17, 2021 19:13:50 GMT 10
Maybe I was mistaken, but I thought that one of the issues with Parler was that members were offering their accounts to Trump as a workaround to the Twitter and Facebook bans on Trump? I believe that Facebook and Twitter also shut down accounts that were being repurposed for Trump? The 'tweet' Trump was removed for was advising his supporters to stand down and to consider a peaceful resolution to their disagreement. The second one, was simply to state he would not be attending the inauguration. Yep. Definitely hate Speech and worthy of a banning. Good job Twitter 👏 This clearly explains why he was banned. blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html It even shows his last two tweets, so your lie doesn't hold up. The tweet he was removed for was about how his supporters would not be silenced and they are American Patriots. It had nothing to do with "advising his supporters to stand down and to consider a peaceful resolution to their disagreement." Which he never did until it looked like he might be impeached again for a second time, this time by the Senate as well as the Reps, and it would stop him running in 2024. He then realised that shit had well and truly hit the fan, that his chance of becoming President again was almost dead. He then did the most sickenly false video plea out of desperation, where he then turned on the same people he called 'patriots' and condemned them, and threw them under the bus, to save himself and his future political chances.
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 17, 2021 19:15:23 GMT 10
The 'tweet' Trump was removed for was advising his supporters to stand down and to consider a peaceful resolution to their disagreement. The second one, was simply to state he would not be attending the inauguration. Yep. Definitely hate Speech and worthy of a banning. Good job Twitter 👏 It's all about context ... Permanent suspension of @realdonaldtrumpBy Twitter Inc. Friday, 8 January 2021 After close review of recent Tweets from the @realdonaldtrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open. However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement. The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case. OverviewOn January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realdonaldtrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service. AssessmentWe assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. This determination is based on a number of factors, including:President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th. The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending. The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol. The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election. Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021. As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so. blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.htmlOf course, the lead up had context too... Trump: 'We won this election, and we won it by a landslide' 'We will stop the steal' 'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen' 'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore' Rudy Giuliani: 'We will have Trial By Combat' Oops, sorry I didn't realise you had also included the link to twitter's decision, I posted after I read your post.
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 17, 2021 20:07:11 GMT 10
This also explains how it took Twitter ages to act against Trump, and how unwilling they were until their own employees demanded it. There was talk around the world for about two years that Trump was sailing very close to being banned or suspended at least. We all knew it would happen eventually, as he was that dangerous. Yet it still took Twitter that many years to even act. Pretty disgraceful that Twitter allowed it to go on this far and the CEO Jack Dorsey didn't even want to act against Trump, and this enabled him. I will copy/paste some of the article as it seems many people including myself cannot open Washington Post's articles unless subscribed, but they do seem to work in Microsoft Edge, not Google Chrome. www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/how-twitter-banned-trump/How Twitter, on the front lines of history, finally decided to ban TrumpTearful all-hands meetings, bitter dialogues and understanding that this will be the single biggest decision in the company’s history."Two days after the riot at the U.S. Capitol, Twitter’s most senior policy executive faced her 5,200 colleagues on a video conference and made an impassioned appeal. Vijaya Gadde‘s voice was breaking as she implored her colleagues to have patience while her team deliberated over what they knew was the most important decision in the social media service’s 15-year history. Some Twitter employees left the meeting on Jan. 8 not knowing what to think. They were worried for their colleagues’ safety — some had already received security threats. But they were also angry that Gadde’s team had let President Trump’s account back onto the service after a 12-hour ban for appearing to encourage the Capitol rioters on the day of the failed insurrection. He had already tweeted again, telling followers they were patriots who would not be disrespected.Less than three hours after Gadde’s emergency meeting, Twitter banned Trump forever. In an instant, the megaphone of the leader of the free world was wiped out, along with his following of 88 million he had built throughout his presidency — some of whom amplified his every word. And it brought to an end an era of free speech online that Twitter — which a senior executive once referred to as “the free speech wing of the free speech party” — had itself helped create. A dozen current and former employees and close observers of the company reconstructed the critical decision, marked by tearful meetings, bitter internal arguments and the culmination of years of debate within the company. Twitter declined to comment and pointed to its lengthy company blog post on the topic. Billionaire Twitter CEO and founder Jack Dorsey wasn’t celebrating the moment. He lamented what the decision meant for the vision of an open Internet that he and his Silicon Valley peers shared when they sought to build a new type of microblogging service 15 years ago. While necessary for public safety, he said it would be “destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open Internet” over the long term in a tweetstorm this week, his first comments since the ban. Dorsey, Gadde and others felt they didn’t have much choice. Earlier that week, a mob of Trump supporters, following the president’s calls on Twitter and in speeches, had attempted a takeover of Congress, leaving one Capitol Police officer and four others dead. Until recently, the company was so reluctant to police content that it only put into place a formal misinformation policy last year. Its corporate slogan — in a 2016 rebrand — was to be the place to hear “what people are talking about right now,” particularly among agenda-setting influencers and political figures. The use of Twitter by public figures to break news allowed the company to punch above its weight against giants like Facebook and YouTube. Public figures were so important to Twitter that, like Facebook, the company long gave them a newsworthiness exemption. They were allowed to say things that would be considered to be policy violations if uttered by everyday users, on the grounds that what these people said was in the public interest. Twitter, and Dorsey in particular, long maintained that even the worst lies should be corrected with more speech rather than removing them. It was Twitter’s responsibility to show “how global leaders think and treat the people around them,” he said. By 2018, Dorsey and Gadde, whose title is legal, policy and trust and safety lead, knew they had to rethink their approach to powerful people’s megaphones. Executives began to devise new policies and product features that would enable the company to place a specific label to cover up a tweet. The warning label — launched in 2019 — was a middle ground. It would tell users that the tweet broke Twitter’s rules but was being allowed to stay up because it was newsworthy. People who wanted to read the content could click to see what was behind the label. The label was first applied to Trump’s comments in May, when he appeared to suggest that racial justice protesters could be shot — “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” It was flagged for breaking rules on “glorification of violence.” Two other tweets that contained falsehoods about mail-in ballots were labeled as well. Even before the election, Twitter took measures to guard against his attempts at misinformation. The efforts were part of a policy to thwart election misinformation, which included labeling and blocking many tweets. During the week after the election, Twitter covered up so many tweets by Trump and his high-profile supporters that it was difficult, at times, to find a tweet that wasn’t blocked. The company also disabled retweeting and other features that are used to spread misinformation in real time. After the election, Twitter let up a bit on the pace of its labeling, but a violent Trump-led movement to fight the election results was just getting started, including on Twitter. Trump used Twitter to call for a rally at the Capitol. “Big protest in D.C. on January 6,” he tweeted in late December. “Be there, will be wild!”That Wednesday, thousands of protesters showed up to answer Trump’s online calls, including some who were armed and prepared for violence. As rioters stormed the Capitol, causing property damage, Trump encouraged their actions with tweets. “ These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!” Twitter suspended him for 12 hours that evening and made him delete the offending tweets, while Facebook suspended him indefinitely the following morning. A blog post from CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that despite any news value the comments might have, the risk of violence was too great to keep them up. Following the deadly Capitol riot, Twitter employees engaged in vigorous debates on Slack, the preferred communication channel for its thousands of people working remotely. “ I’ve been part of the ‘he’s the president, we can’t deactivate him’ crowd for 4 years now but even I have to say, I feel complicit allowing this to happen and I would like to see him deactivated immediately,” one employee wrote on a Slack channel, which was first reported by NBC News. The outrage boiled over into an open letter to Dorsey and Gadde, drafted Wednesday. The letter argued that Twitter should suspend Trump’s account permanently and conduct an investigation into the past several years of corporate actions that led to Twitter’s role in the riot. University of Virginia Law professor Danielle Citron, a longtime Twitter adviser and free-speech expert, said the company should have suspended Trump “the minute” he tweeted about looting and shooting. “If they had properly applied their rules, he would have been gone.” In her remarks, a vi sibly emotional Gadde explained how hard the teams making the decision were working and that some were doing so while facing serious security threats. She explained that the company was still conducting an investigation process over the impact of the tweets. Some employees were skeptical. “People are fed up. They were like, ’You’re crying, but I’m crying too, so now what?’” an employee said. Others couldn’t tell whether the executives were defending the decision to leave the account up or foreshadowing a stronger action that would soon be taken. Behind the scenes, Gadde’s team was closely examining the implications and online reaction among Trump’s most fervent followers to each of Trump’s tweets. The way they were interpreted was key to the company’s reasoning. The initial video Thursday left some feeling betrayed, Twitter researchers learned, while the second “Patriots” tweet and the third tweet boycotting the inauguration were being read as a call to arms and a sign to continue the fight. Less than two hours later, and 48 hours after Trump’s initial suspension, Gadde’s team suspended the president, with Dorsey’s sign-off. But Dorsey was troubled by the action and wrestled with the notion of power. That disappointment spilled into the open on Wednesday night, when Dorsey said, in a characteristically philosophical tweetstorm, that he felt the suspension reflected a failure on his company’s part to maintain a space for civil discourse. For years, he and Twitter had benefited immensely from being at the center of conversations, the public square where news happened. Now, a dangerous precedent was set, he said, in that people were retreating from the public square even further. Dialogues across different viewpoints would be even less possible, and technology companies were becoming even more powerful than governments. That the company had to ban Trump, he felt, was a failure of his service to maintain civil discourse, perhaps existentially. Dorsey said he didn’t believe the answer to the problem was stronger government. Instead, he championed a nascent vision of a future Internet that would be self-governing and inspired by the decentralized model of his other passion, bitcoin. It wasn’t clear from the tweets how that decentralized vision would protect the public from the next Donald Trump."
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 17, 2021 23:38:04 GMT 10
It is sad to see how in America the inauguration of a new President has been reduced to a chaos caused by Republican insurgencies, consider also Trump was aided and abetted by those in the Republican party (GOP) and RW media....Trump was not acting alone he was backed by the party who the majority did not speak out against his creation of domestic terrorism that Sporko applauds.
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 17, 2021 23:44:55 GMT 10
This article I came across while reading the other article, shows very clearly and in clear stages exactly how Trump incited the Capitol insurgence, the sedition. I won't copy/paste all of it as it is too lengthy but will most much of gist of it. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/annotated-trump-speech-jan-6-capitol/What Trump said before his supporters stormed the Capitol, annotatedDemocrats are on the verge of impeaching President Trump again. On Monday, they introduced a single article of impeachment alleging that Trump incited the violent attempted insurrection at the U.S. Capitol last week. Trump’s culpability for the violence is the topic of much debate. But even many of his Republican allies have tied it to his long-running, baseless claims about a stolen election. And others have said Trump went too far in his fiery speech to protesters that preceded their storming of the Capitol. Trump’s speech included no overt calls for his supporters to actually enter the Capitol or resort to violent means. But it included plenty of allusions to the idea that Congress accepting Joe Biden’s victory — an all-but-assured outcome at the time — was a result that simply couldn’t be countenanced and must be stopped. He urged his supporters to “fight” and “fight like hell” and lamented that they didn’t do so as hard as Democrats. The speech must also be viewed in the context of a president who has often alluded to the idea that his supporters might one day get violent. And while he said those who would march to the Capitol after his speech should “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” his speech was also littered with allusions to the protesters having the power to stop what Congress was doing — and indeed, that he was counting on them to do so. All of it will be at issue in the looming impeachment proceedings, but it’s also worth an in-depth look at precisely what Trump said shortly before the historic siege of the Capitol. Below is the full (part of - ME) speech, with annotations providing analysis and context. TRUMP: Media will not show the magnitude of this crowd. Even I, when I turned on today, I looked, and I saw thousands of people here, but you don’t see hundreds of thousands of people behind you because they don’t want to show that. We have hundreds of thousands of people here, and I just want them to be recognized by the fake news media. Turn your cameras, please, and show what is really happening out here, because these people are not going to take it any longer, they’re not going to take it any longer.1 1 Trump's speech begins with a suggestion that his supporters -- whose numbers he vastly overstates as being in the hundreds of thousands -- are "not going to take it any longer." The speech ahead will be littered with references to the idea that his movement is in a desperate moment.Go ahead, turn your cameras, please. Would you show they came from all over the world actually, but they came from all over our country. I just really want to see what they do. I just want to see how they cover it. I’ve never seen anything like it, but it would be really great if we could be covered fairly by the media. The media is the biggest problem we have as far as I’m concerned, single biggest problem. The fake news and the big tech, big tech, is now coming into their own. We beat them four years ago, we surprised them. We took him by surprise and this year they rigged an election, they rigged it like they have never rigged an election before, and by the way, last night, they didn't do a bad job either, if you notice. I am honest, and I just again, I want to thank you. It's just a great honor to have this kind of crowd and to be before you and hundreds of thousands of American patriots who are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious Republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by bold and radical left Democrats, which is what they are doing, and stolen by the fake news media. That is what they have done and what they are doing. We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.2 2 Trump spoke less than two hours before Congress would begin making his loss official But he assured the crowd that he will "never concede." What's notable here is that he lumps in his supporters in that posture, also saying, "We will never give up." It's important to emphasize here that, once Congress accepts the results, there is no more legal recourse. Trump is urging people to continue a fight that in a few hours will have no method of success through the normal processes. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about.3 3 Another reference to the desperation of the moment. As with some of the above, it includes no reference to the crowd using force — which Trump will avoid throughout the speech — but pitches the moment as some kind of last stand. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal4. 4 "Stop the Steal" is a group that organized this rally and others like it across the country. One of its organizers is Ali Alexander, a conspiracy theorist who has inhabited the fringes of the conservative movement. The name, as with much of Trump's rhetoric, references the idea that the election is being deliberately stolen rather than that there are simply doubts about its legitimacy. Here, Trump assures his audience that the stolen election "will" be stopped.And I would love to have, if those tens of thousands of people would be allowed, the military, the Secret Service and we want to thank you — and the police and law enforcement — great, you’re doing a great job. But I would love it if they could be allowed to come up with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them, please?And Rudy, you did a great job. (APPLAUSE) He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party, he’s got guts, he fights, he fights.5 And I will tell you thank you very much, John [Eastman], fantastic job. I watched — that’s a tough act to follow those two. John is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country and he looked at this, and he said what an absolute disgrace that this could be happening to our Constitution, and he looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. 5 "Rudy" refers to Trump's personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. Shortly before Trump's speech, Giuliani had called for a "trial by combat" — one of the more overt references to violence at the rally. It is not clear whether Trump was aware of that controversial remark, but here he endorses what Giuliani said.And I actually, I just spoke to Mike. I said, Mike, that doesn’t take courage, what takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage, and then we are stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot, and we have to live with that for four more years. We’re just not going to let that happen.6 6 This is a crucial section: Trump concludes his recounting of a conversation with Vice President Pence by, again, suggesting that his supporters won't abide a lack of compliance. Legal experts and many Republican lawmakers agreed that Pence could do nothing to prevent Congress from accepting the certified results of these states, and Pence had signaled that he would not attempt to. But Trump suggests that there is something the rally could — and will — do to halt that. We want to go back, and we want to get this right, because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there, and our country will be destroyed. And we’re not going to stand for that.7 7 Another reference to the immediacy of the moment — including the idea that Biden being allowed to win would mean the country "will be destroyed." And Trump yet again alludes to the idea that his supporters won't just let it happen. If this happened to the Democrats, there’d be hell all over the country going on. There’d be hell all over the country.8 But just remember this, you’re stronger, you’re smarter. You’ve got more going than anybody, and they try and demean everybody having to do with us, and you’re the real people. You’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down our nation.9 8 This is a favorite rhetorical device of Trump's: alluding to the idea that Democrats are somehow tougher and more willing to raise "hell" in such situations. Given how often Trump employs this device, it's not difficult to read it as implying that he'd like to see his own supporters respond more forcefully — whatever form that force might take. 9 A particularly striking line given that shortly after this speech, Trump's supporters would storm the Capitol — a deliberate attempt to tear down our government.That election, our election was over at 10 in the evening. We’re leading Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia. By hundreds of thousands of votes, and then late in the evening or early in the morning, boom. These explosions of bullshit, and all of the sudden — (APPLAUSE) — all of a sudden, it started to happen.10 CROWD: Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. 10 Trump has employed coarse language plenty of times as president, but this line whipped up his supporters like few in the speech.Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder.11 And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. And if he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our Constitution. 11 Another reference to the idea that Democrats, whom Trump previously said would raise "hell" in such a situation, are willing to go further than his supporters. As with much of the speech, Trump's references to fighting don't include overt references to using literal force. But he suggests that more extreme measures are warranted and not being undertaken.
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down — (APPLAUSE) — we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol — (APPLAUSE) — and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. (LAUGHTER) Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness.12 You have to show strength and you have to be strong.12 Trump makes his first reference to the crowd descending upon the Capitol. He says he will be with them, but he did not do so due to obvious security concerns. Trump notably suggests that the purpose is to either cheer on lawmakers who do the right thing or protest those who don't.I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.13 Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong for the integrity of our elections. But whether or not they stand strong for our country — our country, our country has been under siege for a long time. Far longer than this four-year period. 13 This is the line that Trump's allies — including Giuliani — have regularly used to defend him against allegations that his speech incited the violence. It is worth noting that Trump directly urged people to "peacefully" make their voices heard at the Capitol. As is often the case, though, Trump co-mingled that with far different messages: The idea that this couldn't be allowed to happen, the idea that it would lead to disaster, and the idea that Democrats wouldn't respond so peacefully. And many of Trump's supporters seemed to internalize that message more than this one.Today, we see a very important event, though, because right over there, right there, we see the event that’s going to take place, and I’m going to be watching because history is going to be made. We’re going to see whether or not we have great and courageous leaders or whether or not we have leaders that should be ashamed of themselves throughout history, throughout eternity. They’ll be ashamed. And you know what? If they do the wrong thing, we should never, ever forget that they did. Never forget.14 14 The "very important event" wound up being something quite different than Congress making a decision about accepting Biden's win.I want to thank the more than 140 members of the House. Those are warriors.15 They’re over there working like you’ve never seen before, studying, talking, actually going all the way back studying the roots of the Constitution because they know we have the right to send a bad vote that was illegally gotten. 15 Trump is hardly the only politician to use battle metaphors while whipping up his supporters, but he's certainly taken it to another level. Most notably, he has referred to his supporters as an "Army for Trump." But think of this: If you don’t do that, that means you will have a president of the United States for four years with his wonderful son, you will have a president who lost all of these states, or you will have a president, to put it another way, who was voted on by a bunch of stupid people who lost all of these states. You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen.16 These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. 16 Again, Trump pitches Biden's ascension to the presidency as unconscionable, saying that "we can't let that happen" — even though it was a foregone conclusion through the regular processes.Stacey Abrams, she took them to lunch. And I beat her two years ago with a bad candidate, Brian Kemp. But they took — the Democrats took the Republicans to lunch because the secretary of state had no clue what the hell was happening — unless he did have a clue. That’s interesting. Maybe he was with the other side.17 17 Trump completely baselessly suggests that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) was acting as something of a double-agent. Raffensperger has said his family has received death threats amid Trump's regular attacks on him. It's a great example of Trump whipping his supporters up with completely evidence-free claims.The radical left knows exactly what they were doing. They are ruthless, and it’s time that somebody did something about it.18 And Mike Pence, I hope you’re going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. (APPLAUSE) And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now. I’m not hearing good stories. 18 "It's time that somebody did something about it" is followed immediately by suggesting that Pence should be that "somebody." But Trump is yet again alluding to supposedly extraordinary measures that he believes his side won't emulate Democrats in taking. It's one of many nebulous calls to some kind of action that Trump's supporters seem to have taken in a very specific way.
Despite all of this, the margin in Georgia is only 11,779 votes. Each and every one of these issues is enough to give us a victory in Georgia, a big beautiful victory. Make no mistake, this election was stolen from you, from me, and from the country, and not a single swing state has conducted a comprehensive audit to remove the illegal ballots.19 This should absolutely occur in every single contested state before the election is certified. 19 After the violent scenes at the Capitol, a number of Republicans have cited Trump's rhetoric about a "stolen" election as being beyond the pale and potentially fomenting the violence. It's worth noting that, while most of them didn't echo this charge for the past two months, few of them objected to it in real time or cautioned of the dangers it could pose. o, when you hear — when you hear, “While there is no evidence to prove any wrongdoing,” this is the most fraudulent thing anybody’s — this is a criminal enterprise. This is a criminal enterprise.20 And the press will say — and I’m sure they won’t put any of that on there because that’s no good and did you ever see — “While there is no evidence to back President Trump’s assertion.” I could go on for another hour reading this stuff to you and telling you about it. 20 Here, Trump alludes to the idea that the election of an American president was guided by a "criminal enterprise." It's the ratcheting up of the "stolen" rhetoric, suggesting an expansive and nefarious network of people.The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican Party if you don’t get tougher. They want to play so straight. They want to play so serious. “The United States, the Constitution doesn’t allow me to send them back to the states.” Well, I would say yes, it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country, and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can’t vote on fraud, and fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do, and I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.21 21 This is all about the process of accepting the certified results of the states, and Trump suggests that rejecting those results would somehow be constitutional. But he again alludes to the idea that we're in an extraordinary situation, in which the old rules no longer apply: "When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules."This is not just a matter of domestic politics; this is a matter of national security.22 So today, in addition to challenging the certification of the election, I’m calling on Congress and the state legislatures to quickly pass sweeping election reforms, and you had better do it before we have no country left. Today is not the end; it’s just the beginning. 22 Trump suggests that allowing Biden's win to move forward would actually be a danger to the country — again, extreme rhetoric that plenty of people seemed to take to warrant extreme measures.I think you have 250,000 people — 250,000. Looking out at all of the amazing patriots here today, I have never been more confident in our nation’s future. Well, I have to say, we have to be a little bit careful. That’s a nice statement, but we have to be a little careful with that statement. If we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country because it’s illegal, when the votes are illegal, when the way that they got there is illegal, when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information —23 23 This is a key section — and one that merits probing. Trump doesn't finish his thought, but he seems to suggest that he might not be so proud of the people gathered if they "allow" the wrong outcome to happen. Their power to stop it — beyond protesting and supporting lawmakers who fall in line — though, would seem to have been quite limited. Nonetheless, Trump suggests that the situation is somehow under their control, and that they will be judged by the results.Our brightest days are before us. Our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security, because nobody, until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9 o’clock in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life. But I said something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can’t have happened, and we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.24 24 Another key line, toward the end, urging supporters to "fight like hell" and warning them that failure to do so would be the very downfall of their country. Political rhetoric, yes, but something many of them truly seemed to believe and acted accordingly.So we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue — I love Pennsylvania Avenue — and we are going to the Capitol. And we are going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote — but we are going to try to give our Republicans — the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help — going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.25 25 Here's Trump's other allusion to walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. It's worth noting that organizers had planned to do this already, but Trump on two occasions encouraged it — even though he had tweeted earlier promoting the idea that the demonstration would be "wild." Trump was essentially telling supporters to bring the wild scene to the doorstep of American government — and that's the most generous interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 18, 2021 11:41:17 GMT 10
I guess I am a proud far-right extremist, then...
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 18, 2021 13:12:17 GMT 10
Is your Child raised by RW extremists
Look for the warning signs
Parents are on anti psychotic drugs
Parents take opiates
Parents are obese
Parents have an aversion to truth and prefer to be lied to by leaders
Parents like to defecate in Capitol Hill offices
Parents want to riot create chaos and sedition
Parents have a deep desire to hang government representatives and senators
Parents who keep mumbling shoot Antifa people
Then they are brainwashed idiots that need serious help.
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 18, 2021 16:18:37 GMT 10
*Sorry it wasn't my intention to edit your post. I meant to hit reply. You are reading too much into it. My life extends beyond cyberspace. My time is limited, so I am selective of what I respond to. If there is a specific issue you'd like me to address, please be concise about it. I have no time to wade through bullshit to find one tiny gem Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 18, 2021 17:01:07 GMT 10
Democrats 'less inclined to cheat on spouses than Republicans' This article is more than 2 years old Analysis finds Democrats used adultery website Ashley Madison substantially less than other US voters
Democrats are less inclined than Republicans to cheat on their spouses, according to researchers who matched voter records to accounts hacked from a US website that specialises in extramarital affairs.
The study of 80,000 voters in five US states found that Democrats used the Ashley Madison adultery website substantially less than Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and unaffiliated voters. Libertarians consistently ranked as the site’s most frequent clients.
The results highlight an apparent paradox where those with more conservative views and supposedly stricter attitudes towards sex seem happier to hop into bed with someone outside their relationship than more liberal types.
“Our results are perhaps the strongest evidence yet that people with more sexually conservative values, although they claim to act accordingly, are more sexually deviant in practice than their more sexually liberal peers,” the researchers write in Archives of Sexual Behaviour.
he study does not shed light on why Republicans might be more likely to have affairs than Democrats, but Arfer has a couple of theories. The first is that, thanks to more restricted sex education and discussion, right-leaning people may be less well-informed about sex and sexuality, and so have poorer sexual self-control. The second is that people who are more interested in taboo activities declare themselves Republicans, and profess to have stricter attitudes, to deflect suspicion. Exactly my belief. The 'protest too much' syndrome. The more outwardly conservative, moralistic and sexually uptight someone is, evidence suggests they are more likely to be caught having homosexual sex (like a prominent Republican whose name escapes me, but I WILL google for it) in a public restroom, been accused of raping children, or having had several extramarital affairs with the mistress going for a 'clean out' - or a Dilation and Curettage. Conservatives have long ago gained the notoriety of being the most promiscuous, the most adulterous, and the ones who have the most abortions. This is fact, it's not something I'm making up.
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 18, 2021 17:08:53 GMT 10
www.salon.com/2019/03/20/5-of-the-most-embarrassing-sex-scandals-involving-socially-conservative-republicans_partner/"On March 18, Pennsylvania State Rep. Brian L. Ellis resigned because of allegations that he sexually assaulted a woman when she was incapacitated. The Dauphin County District Attorney’s Office launched a criminal investigation in January, and the woman who filed a complaint against the Pennsylvania Republican said she “was in a state of blackout” when the alleged assault occurred. Politically, Ellis is far from centrist: he is a hardcore social conservative who, in 2017, received a 0 rating from Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates. But Ellis is only one of the many right-wing culture warriors to be caught up in a sex scandal. Although some Democratic sex scandals have occurred in recent years—for example, former Rep. Anthony Weiner went to prison after pleading guilty, in 2017, to sending sexually explicit material to a minor—many of the most shocking sex scandals have come from far-right Republicans. And in most cases, they weren’t libertarian right-wingers, but severe social conservatives and culture warriors. Here are some embarrassing sex scandals that involved socially-conservative Republicans and far-right culture warriors: 1. Alabama Senate candidate accused of sexually pursuing teenagers When Republican Roy Moore ran against centrist Democrat Doug Jones in Alabama’s 2017 Senate race, he was accused of having sexually pursued adolescent girls when he was in his thirties. Moore’s alleged behavior was so creepy that he was reportedly banned from a shopping mall. Regardless, Moore was endorsed by Trump and far-right Christian fundamentalists. 2. Judge described former House Speaker Hastert as a ‘serial child molester’ When Dennis Hastert served as speaker of the House of Representatives in the 2000s, he was a fierce culture warrior with an anti-gay, anti-abortion record. But in 2015, Hastert was accused of sexually abusing teenage boys during his years as a high school wrestling coach. The former House speaker admitted to sex abuse but was sent to prison for financial crimes, and the judge in the case, Thomas M. Durkin, described Hastert as a “serial child molester”—lamenting, “Nothing is more stunning than having ‘serial child molester’ and ‘speaker of the House’ in the same sentence.” 3. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer When Newt Gingrich was House speaker in the 1990s, he relentlessly attacked President Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, with White House intern Monica Lewinsky—insisting that because Clinton disgraced the presidency, he was unfit for office. But Gingrich, it turned out, had a long history of adultery: he cheated on his first wife, Jackie Battley, in the 1980s, and later cheated on his second wife, Marianne Ginther. 4. Trump accused of having extramarital affairs with a porn star and a Playboy model President Donald Trump wasn’t always a GOP culture warrior; in the 1990s, he described himself as pro-choice but anti-abortion (My comment:- he is anti-abortion; so much so that he has paid for at least 8 (eight) abortions that we know of) and endorsed some Democrats. But that hasn’t stopped Trump from pandering to the Christian Right during his presidency, and far-right evangelicals have been major Trump supporters despite allegations from attorney Michael Cohen that he had extramarital affairs with porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal and paid them hush money to keep quiet. 5. Anti-gay activist sought male escort for European trip Known for promoting bogus “conservation therapy” for gay men, the Rev. George Alan Rekers has been active in the Rev. James Dobson’s Family Research Council as well as the anti-gay National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). But Rekers didn’t practice what he loudly preached: in 2010, Rekers cheated on his wife when he used Rentboy.com (a gay website) to find a male travel companion for a trip to Europe. And the escort told the Miami New Times that he had sex with Rekers during the trip.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 19, 2021 1:49:03 GMT 10
At least we agree on the exaggeration of Covid.😁 ...And you are misinformed. After Parler was removed by Apple and Google, Amazon removed it from their servers. The very server that they depend on to stay on the internet. You can't download it period, thanks to the bully trio who perceived them as a threat to the narrative. They that are the unquestioned gate keepers to all internet information has thus slammed the door on free speech. You can't say anything, unless big tech approves. Welcome to Orwell's 1984, and our 2021. ..and do you really think that they are going to stop there? No Spork, once again you are mistaken, indeed delusional was the first word that came to mind when I read your post. I do not agree that the danger COVID has been exaggerated. That belief on your part is unfounded and quite simply false. If Amazon blocked Parler from their servers that does not mean they are gagged. They can set up their own servers, they can rent space on someone willing to let them use theirs. Once again you don't appear to have a grasp on the facts. Following your logic, Muslims used airplanes in an act of terrorism. Ergo, all Muslims could rightfully be banned from airports... yet they are free to buy their own airplanes if they still choose to fly. No one is stopping them from doing that.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 19, 2021 1:59:12 GMT 10
*Sorry it wasn't my intention to edit your post. I meant to hit reply.
You are reading too much into it. My life extends beyond cyberspace. My life running a household with six children means my time is limited, so I am selective of what I respond to.
If there is a specific issue you'd like me to address, please be concise about it.
I don't have time to get offended by your insults and emotional outrage, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 19, 2021 5:09:58 GMT 10
Is your Child raised by RW extremists Look for the warning signs Parents are on anti psychotic drugs Parents take opiates Parents are obese Parents have an aversion to truth and prefer to be lied to by leaders Parents like to defecate in Capitol Hill offices Parents want to riot create chaos and sedition Parents have a deep desire to hang government representatives and senators Parents who keep mumbling shoot Antifa people Then they are brainwashed idiots that need serious help. Using caricatures only showcase your ignorance. Don't assume any of the above and I won't assume you are an unkept, jobless, shoeless, feminist, godless vegan, stoner, transvestite baby killing, socialist still living in your parent's basement, M'kay? You ought to apologize, but you likely won't, so I'll leave you with this: Disagree with me if you like, but if you are a dick about it don't be surprised if I ignore you. I have one rule: Don't be an assclown!
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 19, 2021 6:14:11 GMT 10
Sporko its OK for you to post untruthful caricatures and I post in response something more closer to the truth and you get down to a personal attack.
You still by choice remain ignorant as to the chaos of Trump tweeting on social media to incite violence amongst his followers who defecated in Capitol Hill offices like primates...indeed for you it is free speech and AOK....all draining the swamp init....Trump is the hard done by victim robbed of an election rather than a spiteful narcistic leader that is now being rejected by people and business alike.
A few people I associate with socially were Trump supporters...now they think he should be locked up for what was displayed on Capitol Hill, people recognising what is criminal behaviour and not just accept the bullshit dogma apologist reasoning for Trump that its just conservative speak.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 19, 2021 6:25:24 GMT 10
The more outwardly conservative, moralistic and sexually uptight someone is, evidence suggests they are more likely to be caught having homosexual sex (like a prominent Republican whose name escapes me, but I WILL google for it) in a public restroom, been accused of raping children, or having had several extramarital affairs with the mistress going for a 'clean out' - or a Dilation and Curettage. Conservatives have long ago gained the notoriety of being the most promiscuous, the most adulterous, and the ones who have the most abortions. This is fact, it's not something I'm making up. Nothing new in any of this. In fact ’twas ever thus. I’d add that there’s nothing intrinsically “deviant” about having homosexual sex but being “caught having homosexual sex” implies that one is secretive and covert about engaging in it. Such people are closet gays whose sexuality is at odds with their moralistic public position. The extreme right wing populist broadcaster Alan Jones is a case in point. In Australia we’re all aware of his hectoring and bullying on the Sydney radio station 2GB as he gave voice to the most reactionary positions on everything from climate change denial to opposition to same sex marriage and yet he gets himself arrested while soliciting for male sex in a public toilet in London. On a lighter note when I was an earnest and zealous undergraduate member of the campus Labor Club decades ago the guys would sport beards and wear duffel coats festooned with Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara badges while the girls wore bib & brace festooned with Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara badges and, thus clad, we’d demonstrate against conscription and the war in Vietnam. Meanwhile on the same campus the Young Liberals were a lot less scruffy, held the best parties and were a magnet for horny male engineering students wanting to get laid. I suspect they had a lot more sex than we did
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 19, 2021 6:47:05 GMT 10
Hear it from the man himself: Twitter gets to decide what news gets to be reported.
*Gets caught in a media cover-up, and the best we can get from Mr. Dorsey is "Oops, my bad." Smh
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 19, 2021 7:54:57 GMT 10
You mightn’t get all the Australian references Occam but don’t let that put you off. I’ll come back to your Ted Cruz clip another time.
About the author
Christopher Warren is an Australian journalist and writer. He was federal secretary of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance until April 2015, and is a past president of the International Federation of Journalists.
|
|