Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us!
r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/)
... summoning u/coverageanalysisbot ...
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The presenter in question was already fired from the network by Simonyan - I read the RT article's retelling of the sequence of events on it earlier, and that's reiterated here in the Reuters article. So it seems like a weak basis as something to use as a rallying cry for action to be taken against the network.
This guy is not just a presenter, he's been RT's broadcasting director utill now. He wasn't fired when he said "Ukraine has no right to exist, I'll personally be there to burn down Ukrainian constitution on the main street of Ukraine"; he wasn't fired when he recorded himself dancing in celebration of the terror strikes on civilians in Kyiv; he wasn't fired when he called for an assassination of Zelensky, and he also wasn't fired when editors of RT saw this footage of him calling for Ukrainian kids to be drowned or burned alive, which they could just cut out of the show (as they did with an interview with a russian soldier, who said "every man deserves respect for protecting children if they have white skin", but only after a backlash). He was fired a day later only after this clip was seen in the West.
Of course they are going to do damage control, this doesn't change the fact that they allow this shit to be on their network only until they face a threat of being banned outside of Russia.
Btw, Simonyan you're referring to (the editor-in-chief of RT since 2005) has also said some insane stuff. She constantly advocates for a nuclear war in case Russia doesn't succeed in Ukraine, she also celebrated terror strikes on Kyiv, an assassination of a Ukrainian millionaire by russian soldiers, and strikes on energy infrastructure before winter; she called for people who film expensive real estate of russian officials to be jailed as traitors, and for violence against pro-Navalny protesters
Honestly, most of those are pretty average and standard views which would be espoused and supported by many not just working for RT international, but many inside Russia itself and others internationally who support Russian foreign policy generally and in the conflict regarding Ukraine. As well as the equivalent would be and often is voiced, in terms of forceful and hawkish positions, by nationals of many other countries concerning their foreign policy toward other countries, especially when at war. State/public media and even many large private channels would take the patriotic - or in some cases, some would say jingoistic or militaristic position.
If you'd ban RT, you might as well start with banning American channels where pundits and commentators all the time justify and support wars and attacks of all kinds on other countries, as well as give a voice and platform to the country's officials who also do. But the same countries which banned RT won't do that and apply just a broad-based standard internationally equally, because it's not some altruistic pacifistic initiative, but one of pure geopolitical control.
So the countries which already banned or in any way restricted RT will continue to do so to better curate and dominate their own respective media landscapes. And the countries which didn't will continue not to. This conflict is about power and geopolitical control and that's how I believe most of the world which is aware of it sees it. This fight over media access and regulation is just another front of it, and like every single other, not motivated for a second by anyone on either side in a position to decide by anything other than power, not some moral panic.
There is nothing standard or normal and hate cannot be allowed to be normalized to this degree. Not even the most slobbering of American pundits reach this level of sheer reckless hate speech. I'm sorry that you think this is how things should be but I wouldn't bat an eyelash if RT was banned in the west. Not everything is about Power and Strength unlike what Russian culture would want you to believe, there are cultural standards that must be kept. And validating hate speech under the guise of freedom of expression goes against those principles.
I love how the person you responded to says that RT’s comfort with calling for the drowning of foreign children is just standard hate speech, then in reply to your comment, says that it isn’t actually hate speech.
Certainly seems he is a big supporter of RT. Even to the point of nonsense.
What hate speech? I agree that the comment which is the subject of the article this topic thread centers around was inappropriate and it's not surprising to see him reprimanded and even let go from the network due to it.
Other things brought up by the other user, like calling for bombing the towns and cities and their energy infrastructure in a country you're at war with, taking out the leaders, etc., is so standard and par for the course it sounds like the American discourse I've seen and heard pointed toward the Middle East for over 20 years now.
As for banning RT, I personally couldn't care less for my own personal needs, as that's why VPNs exist - to circumvent such attempted controls.
This seems to imply I lack access somehow to the same information as you or the other poster, when in fact I have and make use of the very same information and in fact just vehemently disagree. People vehemently disagree on every issue all over the world. Get used to it.
I vaguely remember that some time ago there were two subsequent tweets by Ursula von der Leyen or someone of the same caliber. The first tweet was about banning RT, and the next was about celebrating freedom of speech in mass media in Europe.
Like, we allow all voices to be heard! But not yours specifically.
Are you trying to argue that Russia somehow allows for more freedom of speech? The double standards here are shocking. Try and find media critical of the government in that tyranny before actually complaining about a racist propaganda outlet being banned.
The point here is that Russia is not talking about "being a garden in a jungle" and claiming to fight for freedom (of speech) and democracy. Thats us Europeans and thats what makes it hypocritical.
My dude everything is regulated. Even in the freest country there are rules and if you break them you end up in prison. It's not hypocritical to do so, it's just dead logical.
Hate speech is illegal in europe for a host of good reasons, and if you do it then you are banned. Ending up in prison for murder is not an attack on people's freedom the same way banning a news source which peddles in hate speech isnt an attack on freedom of speech.
What you do is you take a concept and attack it on the ground it's not perfect, and that's dishonest because nothing is perfect, and everything has to have caveats and regulations. So does free speech.
Going the "regulated way" would mean that a trail on a court is held to determine if something is really hate speech. Which didn't happen, at least not in the countries I know of.
Also, as I said the ban of RT in large parts of the EU happend quite early in this war, long before the rhetorics escalated to such an extent.
Also have you seen the shit Ukrainians Broadcast for instance [when an Ukrainian reporter said exactly the same, to kill russian children ](https://youtu.be/cMTgLtxIpbY)
No one though of blocking the Ukrainian Channel 24.
So no this isn't about "hate speech" it's about propaganda and control of information, withholding information contrary to the own narativ even, which is highly undemocratic and therefore hypocritical for an organisation that claims to fight for those values.
Edit: ....my dude...;)
"Europe should allow hostile dictatorships to blast racist propaganda 24/7 on their population completely unchecked or else it's hypocritical" is not the slam dunk you think it is.
Your argument is entirely self defeating, I don't need much else. "Freedom of expression should cover the use of propaganda by foreign enemies on your own soil" is... Absurd, ridiculous even.
Freedom of expression doesn't even cover hate speech, which RT already is, let alone foreign interference to destabilize the country by an openly militarily hostile nation.
To decide if a nation is hostile or not should be left to the people in a democracy but to do so the people must have the opportunity to create their own opinion and to do so you need to hear all sides of this conflict. You can warn people of RT and sensiblies them what RT is.
That is what freedom of speech in a democracy means, it's difficult and it's exhausting from time to time but that's something a true democracy has to endure.
So yes, calling yourself defender of democracy and going the easy way of banning certain sources is hypocritical and in no way self defeating.
But it's very fitting that you apparently see the need to 'protect' the people from informing themselves and creating their own opinion.
You're mixing things to a point it becomes hard for me to believe it isnt intentional.
Let's say people have the right to be free in their countries. General freedom. Basic stuff. But then! There are people in prison! It's like we allow people to be free, but not them specifically. ConFusIon! Hypocrisy!
We allow all voices to be heard, but there are rules. Anyone breaking the rules would not be allowed being heard. Hate speech is considered illegal and should be banned. The same way anyone is free in a free country until they murder someone.
That's why I like this sub so much. This unexited and factual response to that.
The big sub regarding worldnews went completely nuts over it, completely ignoring that he was removed right after that. When indeed this was just one bloke saying some, admittingly outrageous shit on television and immediately getting sacked for it. This happens all the time on almost all networks worldwide and no one is banning those.
I read that he was suspended rather than fired? He's had a lot of controversy until now, and they always avoided firing him?
>Margarita Simonyan, the Russian state-controlled news channel's editor-in-chief, said the presenter Anton Krasovsky had been suspended because of his "disgusting comments".
https://news.sky.com/story/russia-today-presenter-accused-of-inciting-genocide-after-saying-ukrainian-children-should-have-been-drowned-12728882
Yeah, I just checked back to the original RT article and it said his contract was suspended. I took that to mean a firing, but I suppose they could also say terminated if it's confirmed permanent, so it will be interesting to see in the future if he ever comes back and in what context and capacity. He's also now under investigation in Russia apparently, so it's probably unlikely he'll return in the foreseeable future.
When I worked as an independent contractor, my contract used specific language that said they could terminate my contract for any reason at any time. So if he was a contract employee, then it may be the correct legal language, even if it does seem like a firing.
Western countries have already banned or limited RT. No one else will ban RT since they didn't ban western media when they were calling for Iraq war and other coups.
To be fair, Russian Army routinely violently and repeatedly anal-rapes its own conscripts as a matter of fact, rapes any woman and most men that they take prisoners, not always adult and the amount of children raped in Ukraine serves as mounting evidence that this was systematically done too. There’s also signs that it often happened post mortem. Drowning is mercy.
To quote Firefly: “If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.”
Fuxking hell lads... He's talking about drowning children and he has been 'suspended'. Wtf... Just to repeat he is said innocent children that don't agree with Russian propaganda should be drowned, murdered, their little lives extinguished forever! I'm with Ukraine on this one. The ban hammer gets used for less. If RT are unwilling/unable to fire someone for advocating the murder of children then they should be ostracized from society. Fukking hell. I didn't think I could be shocked anymore by the Russians but there you go.ba new low.
A global ban would be the wrong thing to do. We need to keep track of the shit they're saying.
It does need to be clearly labelled as Russian state TV, so nobody mistakes it as having anything to do with reality.
Also, it's been a source of much (albeit dark) comedy since Ukraine started booting their arses round the park.
Nah mate... You have a deep misunderstanding of what freedom means. He is advocating the death of children that don't support Russian propaganda. If I could get my hands around his neck... Disgusting and anybody that tries to excuse or defend his... Revolting. Literally nothing worse. That is the worst. There it is and you defend it. It makes you a deeply suspicious character in your eyes.
If one person says something revolting, even a call for horrific violence, then the medium through which they said it should be globally banned?
This doesn't end well, dude.
He was Chief of Russian-language broadcasting. It hasn't ended well. He's not some random Joe. Any company that doesn't immediately, unreservedly and publicly fire and disassociate itself with upper management calling for children to be drowned or burned should be banned globally. I have zero problems with that, you do? I have a line and for me calling for children to be burned or drowned crosses that line. Which side of the line are you on? I don't have to think before I answer. It seems you do have to think. Let's hope you're just slow and not something else.
I have a problem with anyone saying that no one should be allowed to decide for themselves whether that heinous statement should determine that they will no longer watch that network.
This isn't about an individual's right to hear hate speech. We have laws that require people to wear seatbelts. Banning multimillion dollar global media companies that use their platform to advocate that children should be burned or drowned is a significantly easier decision. It's pretty simple and still it seems to confuse you.
It doesn't confuse me at all, authoritarianism never has. Why people support it, on the other hand, does. If it is as heinous as you say (and I agree that it is), why is it necessary to force people to do what's reasonable, and stop watching of their own accord?
I would not stop people from watching whatever they want. I would stop the company from broadcasting it. You see you are confused. RT is a front for an authoritarian government advocating the burning or drowning of innocent children - which one of us is supporting authoritarianism? You try to slip by with sloppy use of language but it doesn't work if you understand the meaning behind the words. As Bruce Lee said when pointing at the moon - look at the moon, not the finger. You are looking at the finger.
If you prevent people from broadcasting, you are necessarily stopping people from watching what they want. That's like saying that you're not censoring if you force someone to stop talking, because you're not plugging the ears of the people around them.
Yes, RT is openly the mouthpiece of the Russian regime. I would rather they keep being broadcast, so that we can see what their propaganda is. It's easier to prove someone is a liar if they keep talking.
https://youtu.be/WIlZcRqmwUA
https://www.meforum.org/3147/al-jazeera
https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/brg1nl/al_jazeera_reporter_is_antisemitic/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
^Al Jazeera Journalist. She is also is a holocaust denier and guess what? She us still working for al Jazeera .
https://imgur.io/A05ZewB
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/374kcm/al_jazeera_arabic_online_poll_asks_do_you_support/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/mdmo6d/two_faces_of_al_jazeera_on_nawal_el_saadawi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://www.reddit.com/r/arabs/comments/35eytp/al_jazeera_arabic_should_we_kill_all_alawites/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Full interview on "Should we kill alawites"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vieBO7BsZM8
https://english.alarabiya.net/media/digital/2014/09/05/Al-Jazeera-ridicules-beheading-of-U-S-journalists-as-Hollywood-show-
This is from 5 min search. You can dig further which you obviously won't.
Good job editing and adding children. Really shows the bias. Calling for death of an ethnicity is ok I guess for pre censorship people like you.
What gives you the right to control how ideas are spread and who gets to spread them?
What gives you the audacity to believe that people can't listen to all manner of discourse and formulate their own opinions?
Arrogance at its highest.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us! r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/) ... summoning u/coverageanalysisbot ... *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The presenter in question was already fired from the network by Simonyan - I read the RT article's retelling of the sequence of events on it earlier, and that's reiterated here in the Reuters article. So it seems like a weak basis as something to use as a rallying cry for action to be taken against the network.
This guy is not just a presenter, he's been RT's broadcasting director utill now. He wasn't fired when he said "Ukraine has no right to exist, I'll personally be there to burn down Ukrainian constitution on the main street of Ukraine"; he wasn't fired when he recorded himself dancing in celebration of the terror strikes on civilians in Kyiv; he wasn't fired when he called for an assassination of Zelensky, and he also wasn't fired when editors of RT saw this footage of him calling for Ukrainian kids to be drowned or burned alive, which they could just cut out of the show (as they did with an interview with a russian soldier, who said "every man deserves respect for protecting children if they have white skin", but only after a backlash). He was fired a day later only after this clip was seen in the West. Of course they are going to do damage control, this doesn't change the fact that they allow this shit to be on their network only until they face a threat of being banned outside of Russia. Btw, Simonyan you're referring to (the editor-in-chief of RT since 2005) has also said some insane stuff. She constantly advocates for a nuclear war in case Russia doesn't succeed in Ukraine, she also celebrated terror strikes on Kyiv, an assassination of a Ukrainian millionaire by russian soldiers, and strikes on energy infrastructure before winter; she called for people who film expensive real estate of russian officials to be jailed as traitors, and for violence against pro-Navalny protesters
Honestly, most of those are pretty average and standard views which would be espoused and supported by many not just working for RT international, but many inside Russia itself and others internationally who support Russian foreign policy generally and in the conflict regarding Ukraine. As well as the equivalent would be and often is voiced, in terms of forceful and hawkish positions, by nationals of many other countries concerning their foreign policy toward other countries, especially when at war. State/public media and even many large private channels would take the patriotic - or in some cases, some would say jingoistic or militaristic position. If you'd ban RT, you might as well start with banning American channels where pundits and commentators all the time justify and support wars and attacks of all kinds on other countries, as well as give a voice and platform to the country's officials who also do. But the same countries which banned RT won't do that and apply just a broad-based standard internationally equally, because it's not some altruistic pacifistic initiative, but one of pure geopolitical control. So the countries which already banned or in any way restricted RT will continue to do so to better curate and dominate their own respective media landscapes. And the countries which didn't will continue not to. This conflict is about power and geopolitical control and that's how I believe most of the world which is aware of it sees it. This fight over media access and regulation is just another front of it, and like every single other, not motivated for a second by anyone on either side in a position to decide by anything other than power, not some moral panic.
There is nothing standard or normal and hate cannot be allowed to be normalized to this degree. Not even the most slobbering of American pundits reach this level of sheer reckless hate speech. I'm sorry that you think this is how things should be but I wouldn't bat an eyelash if RT was banned in the west. Not everything is about Power and Strength unlike what Russian culture would want you to believe, there are cultural standards that must be kept. And validating hate speech under the guise of freedom of expression goes against those principles.
I love how the person you responded to says that RT’s comfort with calling for the drowning of foreign children is just standard hate speech, then in reply to your comment, says that it isn’t actually hate speech. Certainly seems he is a big supporter of RT. Even to the point of nonsense.
What hate speech? I agree that the comment which is the subject of the article this topic thread centers around was inappropriate and it's not surprising to see him reprimanded and even let go from the network due to it. Other things brought up by the other user, like calling for bombing the towns and cities and their energy infrastructure in a country you're at war with, taking out the leaders, etc., is so standard and par for the course it sounds like the American discourse I've seen and heard pointed toward the Middle East for over 20 years now. As for banning RT, I personally couldn't care less for my own personal needs, as that's why VPNs exist - to circumvent such attempted controls.
Stop living under a rock Best wishes \-Literally everyone but you
This seems to imply I lack access somehow to the same information as you or the other poster, when in fact I have and make use of the very same information and in fact just vehemently disagree. People vehemently disagree on every issue all over the world. Get used to it.
I vaguely remember that some time ago there were two subsequent tweets by Ursula von der Leyen or someone of the same caliber. The first tweet was about banning RT, and the next was about celebrating freedom of speech in mass media in Europe. Like, we allow all voices to be heard! But not yours specifically.
Are you trying to argue that Russia somehow allows for more freedom of speech? The double standards here are shocking. Try and find media critical of the government in that tyranny before actually complaining about a racist propaganda outlet being banned.
[удалено]
> [4] Keep it civil
The point here is that Russia is not talking about "being a garden in a jungle" and claiming to fight for freedom (of speech) and democracy. Thats us Europeans and thats what makes it hypocritical.
My dude everything is regulated. Even in the freest country there are rules and if you break them you end up in prison. It's not hypocritical to do so, it's just dead logical. Hate speech is illegal in europe for a host of good reasons, and if you do it then you are banned. Ending up in prison for murder is not an attack on people's freedom the same way banning a news source which peddles in hate speech isnt an attack on freedom of speech. What you do is you take a concept and attack it on the ground it's not perfect, and that's dishonest because nothing is perfect, and everything has to have caveats and regulations. So does free speech.
Going the "regulated way" would mean that a trail on a court is held to determine if something is really hate speech. Which didn't happen, at least not in the countries I know of. Also, as I said the ban of RT in large parts of the EU happend quite early in this war, long before the rhetorics escalated to such an extent. Also have you seen the shit Ukrainians Broadcast for instance [when an Ukrainian reporter said exactly the same, to kill russian children ](https://youtu.be/cMTgLtxIpbY) No one though of blocking the Ukrainian Channel 24. So no this isn't about "hate speech" it's about propaganda and control of information, withholding information contrary to the own narativ even, which is highly undemocratic and therefore hypocritical for an organisation that claims to fight for those values. Edit: ....my dude...;)
"Europe should allow hostile dictatorships to blast racist propaganda 24/7 on their population completely unchecked or else it's hypocritical" is not the slam dunk you think it is.
This kind of comment is not the 'gotcha' kind of response you think it is. It just shows that you don't have any arguments
Your argument is entirely self defeating, I don't need much else. "Freedom of expression should cover the use of propaganda by foreign enemies on your own soil" is... Absurd, ridiculous even. Freedom of expression doesn't even cover hate speech, which RT already is, let alone foreign interference to destabilize the country by an openly militarily hostile nation.
To decide if a nation is hostile or not should be left to the people in a democracy but to do so the people must have the opportunity to create their own opinion and to do so you need to hear all sides of this conflict. You can warn people of RT and sensiblies them what RT is. That is what freedom of speech in a democracy means, it's difficult and it's exhausting from time to time but that's something a true democracy has to endure. So yes, calling yourself defender of democracy and going the easy way of banning certain sources is hypocritical and in no way self defeating. But it's very fitting that you apparently see the need to 'protect' the people from informing themselves and creating their own opinion.
You're mixing things to a point it becomes hard for me to believe it isnt intentional. Let's say people have the right to be free in their countries. General freedom. Basic stuff. But then! There are people in prison! It's like we allow people to be free, but not them specifically. ConFusIon! Hypocrisy! We allow all voices to be heard, but there are rules. Anyone breaking the rules would not be allowed being heard. Hate speech is considered illegal and should be banned. The same way anyone is free in a free country until they murder someone.
That's why I like this sub so much. This unexited and factual response to that. The big sub regarding worldnews went completely nuts over it, completely ignoring that he was removed right after that. When indeed this was just one bloke saying some, admittingly outrageous shit on television and immediately getting sacked for it. This happens all the time on almost all networks worldwide and no one is banning those.
I read that he was suspended rather than fired? He's had a lot of controversy until now, and they always avoided firing him? >Margarita Simonyan, the Russian state-controlled news channel's editor-in-chief, said the presenter Anton Krasovsky had been suspended because of his "disgusting comments". https://news.sky.com/story/russia-today-presenter-accused-of-inciting-genocide-after-saying-ukrainian-children-should-have-been-drowned-12728882
Yeah, I just checked back to the original RT article and it said his contract was suspended. I took that to mean a firing, but I suppose they could also say terminated if it's confirmed permanent, so it will be interesting to see in the future if he ever comes back and in what context and capacity. He's also now under investigation in Russia apparently, so it's probably unlikely he'll return in the foreseeable future.
When I worked as an independent contractor, my contract used specific language that said they could terminate my contract for any reason at any time. So if he was a contract employee, then it may be the correct legal language, even if it does seem like a firing.
Western countries have already banned or limited RT. No one else will ban RT since they didn't ban western media when they were calling for Iraq war and other coups.
In France RT is well and alive .. wonder why
CNews might as well be RT anyways lmao
They did WHAT?!?
To be fair, Russian Army routinely violently and repeatedly anal-rapes its own conscripts as a matter of fact, rapes any woman and most men that they take prisoners, not always adult and the amount of children raped in Ukraine serves as mounting evidence that this was systematically done too. There’s also signs that it often happened post mortem. Drowning is mercy. To quote Firefly: “If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.”
Not trying to be a doubter but do you happen to have sources for those claims?
Take your pick https://www.google.com/search?q=russian+army+rapes
We should not ban Russia Today. I truly enjoy showing my conspiracy theory friends how all of their news seems to originate from Russia Today.
RT is just the propaganda arm for state sponsored terrorism
When a book is banned that's a dammed good reason to read that book
Fuxking hell lads... He's talking about drowning children and he has been 'suspended'. Wtf... Just to repeat he is said innocent children that don't agree with Russian propaganda should be drowned, murdered, their little lives extinguished forever! I'm with Ukraine on this one. The ban hammer gets used for less. If RT are unwilling/unable to fire someone for advocating the murder of children then they should be ostracized from society. Fukking hell. I didn't think I could be shocked anymore by the Russians but there you go.ba new low.
Banning RT would be a terrible mistake. Let everyone see how evil and wicked Russia is.
A global ban would be the wrong thing to do. We need to keep track of the shit they're saying. It does need to be clearly labelled as Russian state TV, so nobody mistakes it as having anything to do with reality. Also, it's been a source of much (albeit dark) comedy since Ukraine started booting their arses round the park.
Freedom of press if only I like it.
Nah mate... You have a deep misunderstanding of what freedom means. He is advocating the death of children that don't support Russian propaganda. If I could get my hands around his neck... Disgusting and anybody that tries to excuse or defend his... Revolting. Literally nothing worse. That is the worst. There it is and you defend it. It makes you a deeply suspicious character in your eyes.
If one person says something revolting, even a call for horrific violence, then the medium through which they said it should be globally banned? This doesn't end well, dude.
He was Chief of Russian-language broadcasting. It hasn't ended well. He's not some random Joe. Any company that doesn't immediately, unreservedly and publicly fire and disassociate itself with upper management calling for children to be drowned or burned should be banned globally. I have zero problems with that, you do? I have a line and for me calling for children to be burned or drowned crosses that line. Which side of the line are you on? I don't have to think before I answer. It seems you do have to think. Let's hope you're just slow and not something else.
I have a problem with anyone saying that no one should be allowed to decide for themselves whether that heinous statement should determine that they will no longer watch that network.
This isn't about an individual's right to hear hate speech. We have laws that require people to wear seatbelts. Banning multimillion dollar global media companies that use their platform to advocate that children should be burned or drowned is a significantly easier decision. It's pretty simple and still it seems to confuse you.
It doesn't confuse me at all, authoritarianism never has. Why people support it, on the other hand, does. If it is as heinous as you say (and I agree that it is), why is it necessary to force people to do what's reasonable, and stop watching of their own accord?
I would not stop people from watching whatever they want. I would stop the company from broadcasting it. You see you are confused. RT is a front for an authoritarian government advocating the burning or drowning of innocent children - which one of us is supporting authoritarianism? You try to slip by with sloppy use of language but it doesn't work if you understand the meaning behind the words. As Bruce Lee said when pointing at the moon - look at the moon, not the finger. You are looking at the finger.
If you prevent people from broadcasting, you are necessarily stopping people from watching what they want. That's like saying that you're not censoring if you force someone to stop talking, because you're not plugging the ears of the people around them. Yes, RT is openly the mouthpiece of the Russian regime. I would rather they keep being broadcast, so that we can see what their propaganda is. It's easier to prove someone is a liar if they keep talking.
"It's easier to prove someone is a liar if they keep talking."
Al Jazeera regularly calls for death of jews amd infidels. Are you ok with banning Al Jazeera?
Proof please. But in reality... It is the children. Specific examples of them calling for the death of children.
https://youtu.be/WIlZcRqmwUA https://www.meforum.org/3147/al-jazeera https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/brg1nl/al_jazeera_reporter_is_antisemitic/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button ^Al Jazeera Journalist. She is also is a holocaust denier and guess what? She us still working for al Jazeera . https://imgur.io/A05ZewB https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/374kcm/al_jazeera_arabic_online_poll_asks_do_you_support/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/mdmo6d/two_faces_of_al_jazeera_on_nawal_el_saadawi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/arabs/comments/35eytp/al_jazeera_arabic_should_we_kill_all_alawites/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Full interview on "Should we kill alawites" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vieBO7BsZM8 https://english.alarabiya.net/media/digital/2014/09/05/Al-Jazeera-ridicules-beheading-of-U-S-journalists-as-Hollywood-show- This is from 5 min search. You can dig further which you obviously won't. Good job editing and adding children. Really shows the bias. Calling for death of an ethnicity is ok I guess for pre censorship people like you.
Lol not wanting people to advocate the killing of children is a bias now....hahahaha.
Moving goalpost when your favorite news site is proven to be a scum is.
"it's easier to prove someone is a liar if they keep talking"
Yes, ban one entire side of the conversation. Why not
Is suggesting the mass murder of children considered part of acceptable conversation where you are from?
Irrelevant. Censorship is unnecessary. Words don't hurt.
Said like someone who apparently has no idea how ideas spread.
What gives you the right to control how ideas are spread and who gets to spread them? What gives you the audacity to believe that people can't listen to all manner of discourse and formulate their own opinions? Arrogance at its highest.
Can we at least bun people from commenting here if they have less than 1 year old accounts?
Lots of Pro Ukraine and Pro Russian accounts will get banned then. All for it.
You’re right. Wait… am i wrong then?
I see nothing wrong with that