Some seem to think this organization was “anti free speech”. Thing is, if you believe in free speech, famously, you have to agree to let people disagree with you!
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.“
The federal government putting its thumbs on the scales in debates about what can and should be broadcast (on both traditional and social media) should worry anyone who cares about free speech.
I will not defend the case against this person, because I think that trump's gouvernement actions are awful.
But just to nitpick, it looks like that what is taken against this guy is not that they defend a point of view as "free speech" but that they took offensive actions against free speech by pressuring tech and starting baseless legal actions.
But, in the end justice is there to say if things are free speech or not, so it is really bad spirit to use the visa to take revenge on him.
Also the cynical in me would say that somehow you are still a guest in the country so maybe it is not very legitimate to be a lobbyist group for what you think should be the spirit of the country.
Like if I have a visa in China and there create an offensive lobbying group to force companies to support capitalism and free market...
>> The Center for Countering Digital Hate founder was among five people denied US visas ...
Has a link to an earlier article about the "five people"[0]
>>Imran Ahmed, an ex-Labour adviser who now heads the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), and Clare Melford, CEO of the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) [...] Ahmed from the CCDH, which says it advocates for government action against hate speech and disinformation online, has links to senior Labour figures. He was previously an aide to Labour minister Hilary Benn, and Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has served as a director of the group he founded.
Along with more details about the people, the trump side claims and other information about this on going event. The info was referenced in this article to a more informationally relevant article that establishes who he is. The article you are commenting on is a follow up to that one.
The earlier article has a brief mention of CCDH's Labour links, and none of the other information in my post. It does cite the US govt. accusations, but makes very sure that's all it cites - painting a picture of he-said she-said, as if those accusations were not easily verifiable.
It also parrots UK govt. talking points on how much they value free speech and how denying visas is equivalent to censorship and witch-hunts, but neglects to mention the UK has banned, among others, Renaud Camus and Martin Sellner, from entry, based upon their speech.
It does give information about "former Labour strategist [1,2], the CCDH he leads was founded by another Labour strategist and current Downing Street Chief of Staff" not in your exact words, but clearly disclosed connections and work:
has links to senior Labour figures. He was previously an aide to Labour minister Hilary Benn, and Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has served as a director of the group he founded.
> but neglects to mention the UK has banned, among others, Renaud Camus and Martin Sellner, from entry, based upon their speech.
This event isn't about whatever broken system they have in the UK about banning people. It's about the US taking action against a US resident, which has clear free speech protections from the government doing what it is doing.
As I would expect of any reporting, that it not go off on tangents that are unrelated to this event. They have included or invite to comment from all parties involved. It's a mistake to read a subject's quote that is un-agreeable as biased reporting from a news outlet when the bias is coming from the people involved -- either the UK govt, the US govt, or the people at the center of it.
They quote UK govt officials making their UK talking points the same as they printed the US govt officials talking points. The "witch-hunts" and other claims are quotes from the people directly involved.
As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack that is full of scare-quotes with an emotionally written bent -- is subjective at best. It has no relevance to real-world reporting, it doesn't meet journalistic standards to take every random one-sided internet theory as fact -- nor are they obligated to investigate and verify every substack posting on the internet.
> It does give information about "former Labour strategist.."
That's what I wrote? From my post: The earlier article has a brief mention of CCDH's Labour links, and none of the other information in my post.
> This event isn't about whatever broken system [..] As I would expect of any reporting, that it not go off on tangents that are unrelated to this event.
When a government complains about something, I would expect of any half-competent journalist to mention that they are guilty of the exact same thing. Just repeating statements of the parties involved is not journalism, but stenography. Naturally I disagree that it is "unrelated".
> They quote UK govt officials making their UK talking points the same as they printed the US govt officials talking points.
You don't notice propaganda when it's right in your face. The first three paragraphs of the BBC article:
The Center for Countering Digital Hate founder was among five people denied US visas - not "he claims he was denied"
after the Trump administration accused them of seeking to "coerce" tech platforms into censoring free speech. - but here it is a mere 'accusation', despite the CCDH's well-documented tactics [1] of deplatforming and going after the finances of media they dislike.
The move brought a backlash from European leaders defending the work of organisations monitoring online content. - they mention the monitoring, but not the deplatforming campaigns. Again, not a he-said she-said, but in the journalistic voice of stating facts.
> As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack
The tactics are directly from the wikipedia page for the CCDH, as cited in my post.
> It has no relevance to real-world reporting, it doesn't meet journalistic standards to take every random one-sided internet theory as fact -- nor are they obligated to investigate and verify every substack posting on the internet.
It's not a "theory" but documents leaked by a whistleblower. Maybe it's false, but it's not random, but by Matt Taibbi [2]. Please don't ignore half my post, and misrepresent the other half.
I find it sad that you think stenography is journalism, but investigating or providing context is irrelevant and sub-standard.
[2] In 2021, Ross Barkan of New York wrote, "Taibbi is—or was, depending on your view—one of the most celebrated investigative journalists of his generation." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi#Assessments
It appears we are talking about two different things.
I am discussing this article as news reporting, which it is, and it meets the journalistic standard for such. You are wanting an investigative report or exposé on a follow-up news event that happened this week. They are simply not the same and I would question anyones ability to publish a reliable investigative feature in that time.
> I would question anyones ability to publish a reliable investigative feature in that time.
The BBC are not naive babes born yesterday. All of the context I gave is more than a year old. They would not create a new investigative feature, but simply reference old ones, by themselves or media they trust. The equivalent of writing "North Korea borders South Korea, and they share a history of hostilities." in an article about Kim's latest missile test.
>As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack that is full of scare-quotes with an emotionally written bent -- is subjective at best.
There's plenty reason to suspect BBC is partial, particularly after the recent exposure of their awful edits on Trump's speech[0].
Well, the US is a "propositional nation", we are told, so of course people are deported if they don't subscribe to the proposition. How else could it be a propositional nation?
> Well, the US is a "propositional nation", we are told, so of course people are deported if they don't subscribe to the proposition. How else could it be a propositional nation?
Nope, I’m fairly clued into politics and anyone wanting to question that can check my post history. I have literally never heard the term “propositional nation” prior to your post.
What does it mean, and where do you intend to move the Overton window while talking about it like it’s common knowledge?
Proposition nation: A nation founded on certain creeds or ideals [1]. A.k.a. a "creedal nation" [2].
You probably heard it called "civic nationalism", which uses different words to say the same. From wikipedia [3, emphasis mine]: a "civic nation" defines itself not by culture but by political institutions and liberal principles, which its citizens pledge to uphold. Membership in the civic nation is open to every person by citizenship, regardless of culture or ethnicity. Those who share these values are considered members of the nation
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proposition_nation - Barbara Perry, 'Hate Crimes' (volume 3, page 117): Because they view the world through a racial lens, white nationalists do not agree with the notion that America is a creedal or 'proposition nation', meaning one whose societal and cultural norms are based on acceptance of the Declaration of Independence and the other founding documents...."
US free speech is not absolute, nor is it freedom from consequence. The consequence for foreign activists pushing foreign agendas may very well be deportation.
No country has an obligation to welcome anyone from any other country, especially those who do not intend to even try and adopt its values and customs, even more so foreign agents who come with the sole intent of association to push the agenda of a party they were members from in their old country into the politics of the new one.
Ahh so the constitution doesn’t apply to non-citizens? The Supreme Court disagrees:
There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law… Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.
Given how many people have been deported this year in violation of judicial orders, and how the secretary of the DHS earlier this year even testified to Congress that they thought "habeas corpus" was a right the president has to unilaterally deport people, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be trying to get out in front of any potential unconstitutional deportations by arguing against them. If the fears turn out to be unfounded, that's a good thing.
Correct. As its sole purpose is to prevent the Government from restricting speech for viewpoints it does not like from anyone living under that government. Any laws restricting Free Speech have to be narrowly defined and/or viewpoint agnostic; military secrets, sedition, etc. And those restriction can only be created by law, not a mayor's or governor's or president's whims.
Advocacy or speaking to others, including business owners, with viewpoints the government doesn't like is allowed.
It's the main point of Free Speech -- to prevent the government, and only the government, from censoring or interfering/restraining the expression of opinions. Especially if those opinions are not in alignment with, or favorable to, any sitting government.
This applies to both citizens and those who reside in the US. The person in the article is a US permanent resident.
Oh, I guess we should act like all other countries.
The thing that has made me see red the most when talking with the current populist nativist ideologues is how they crow about America being the best but then point to other countries behavior as defense for their own.
I actually believe that America _was_ the best before this crew took over. That is because we had high barriers and filtered for the competent.
I would be all for 100 foot walls around the border if anyone who managed to cross them got citizenship for the achievement. Instead I am getting a bunch of dipshits who largely live on the largesse of tax receipts from my region of the nation and our equivalents on the other coast, claiming how superior they are while they destroy everything that made us great.
If you want to defend this behavior as being pro free speech, then go fuck yourself for trying to pull this 1984 newspeak shit off
Some seem to think this organization was “anti free speech”. Thing is, if you believe in free speech, famously, you have to agree to let people disagree with you!
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.“
The federal government putting its thumbs on the scales in debates about what can and should be broadcast (on both traditional and social media) should worry anyone who cares about free speech.
I will not defend the case against this person, because I think that trump's gouvernement actions are awful. But just to nitpick, it looks like that what is taken against this guy is not that they defend a point of view as "free speech" but that they took offensive actions against free speech by pressuring tech and starting baseless legal actions.
But, in the end justice is there to say if things are free speech or not, so it is really bad spirit to use the visa to take revenge on him.
Also the cynical in me would say that somehow you are still a guest in the country so maybe it is not very legitimate to be a lobbyist group for what you think should be the spirit of the country.
Like if I have a visa in China and there create an offensive lobbying group to force companies to support capitalism and free market...
[flagged]
The second sentence/paragraph of this article:
>> The Center for Countering Digital Hate founder was among five people denied US visas ...
Has a link to an earlier article about the "five people"[0]
>>Imran Ahmed, an ex-Labour adviser who now heads the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), and Clare Melford, CEO of the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) [...] Ahmed from the CCDH, which says it advocates for government action against hate speech and disinformation online, has links to senior Labour figures. He was previously an aide to Labour minister Hilary Benn, and Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has served as a director of the group he founded.
Along with more details about the people, the trump side claims and other information about this on going event. The info was referenced in this article to a more informationally relevant article that establishes who he is. The article you are commenting on is a follow up to that one.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp39kngz008o
The earlier article has a brief mention of CCDH's Labour links, and none of the other information in my post. It does cite the US govt. accusations, but makes very sure that's all it cites - painting a picture of he-said she-said, as if those accusations were not easily verifiable.
It also parrots UK govt. talking points on how much they value free speech and how denying visas is equivalent to censorship and witch-hunts, but neglects to mention the UK has banned, among others, Renaud Camus and Martin Sellner, from entry, based upon their speech.
It does give information about "former Labour strategist [1,2], the CCDH he leads was founded by another Labour strategist and current Downing Street Chief of Staff" not in your exact words, but clearly disclosed connections and work:
has links to senior Labour figures. He was previously an aide to Labour minister Hilary Benn, and Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has served as a director of the group he founded.
> but neglects to mention the UK has banned, among others, Renaud Camus and Martin Sellner, from entry, based upon their speech.
This event isn't about whatever broken system they have in the UK about banning people. It's about the US taking action against a US resident, which has clear free speech protections from the government doing what it is doing.
As I would expect of any reporting, that it not go off on tangents that are unrelated to this event. They have included or invite to comment from all parties involved. It's a mistake to read a subject's quote that is un-agreeable as biased reporting from a news outlet when the bias is coming from the people involved -- either the UK govt, the US govt, or the people at the center of it.
They quote UK govt officials making their UK talking points the same as they printed the US govt officials talking points. The "witch-hunts" and other claims are quotes from the people directly involved.
As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack that is full of scare-quotes with an emotionally written bent -- is subjective at best. It has no relevance to real-world reporting, it doesn't meet journalistic standards to take every random one-sided internet theory as fact -- nor are they obligated to investigate and verify every substack posting on the internet.
> It does give information about "former Labour strategist.."
That's what I wrote? From my post: The earlier article has a brief mention of CCDH's Labour links, and none of the other information in my post.
> This event isn't about whatever broken system [..] As I would expect of any reporting, that it not go off on tangents that are unrelated to this event.
When a government complains about something, I would expect of any half-competent journalist to mention that they are guilty of the exact same thing. Just repeating statements of the parties involved is not journalism, but stenography. Naturally I disagree that it is "unrelated".
> They quote UK govt officials making their UK talking points the same as they printed the US govt officials talking points.
You don't notice propaganda when it's right in your face. The first three paragraphs of the BBC article:
The Center for Countering Digital Hate founder was among five people denied US visas - not "he claims he was denied"
after the Trump administration accused them of seeking to "coerce" tech platforms into censoring free speech. - but here it is a mere 'accusation', despite the CCDH's well-documented tactics [1] of deplatforming and going after the finances of media they dislike.
The move brought a backlash from European leaders defending the work of organisations monitoring online content. - they mention the monitoring, but not the deplatforming campaigns. Again, not a he-said she-said, but in the journalistic voice of stating facts.
> As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack
The tactics are directly from the wikipedia page for the CCDH, as cited in my post.
> It has no relevance to real-world reporting, it doesn't meet journalistic standards to take every random one-sided internet theory as fact -- nor are they obligated to investigate and verify every substack posting on the internet.
It's not a "theory" but documents leaked by a whistleblower. Maybe it's false, but it's not random, but by Matt Taibbi [2]. Please don't ignore half my post, and misrepresent the other half.
I find it sad that you think stenography is journalism, but investigating or providing context is irrelevant and sub-standard.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Countering_Digital_...
[2] In 2021, Ross Barkan of New York wrote, "Taibbi is—or was, depending on your view—one of the most celebrated investigative journalists of his generation." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi#Assessments
It appears we are talking about two different things.
I am discussing this article as news reporting, which it is, and it meets the journalistic standard for such. You are wanting an investigative report or exposé on a follow-up news event that happened this week. They are simply not the same and I would question anyones ability to publish a reliable investigative feature in that time.
> I would question anyones ability to publish a reliable investigative feature in that time.
The BBC are not naive babes born yesterday. All of the context I gave is more than a year old. They would not create a new investigative feature, but simply reference old ones, by themselves or media they trust. The equivalent of writing "North Korea borders South Korea, and they share a history of hostilities." in an article about Kim's latest missile test.
>As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack that is full of scare-quotes with an emotionally written bent -- is subjective at best.
There's plenty reason to suspect BBC is partial, particularly after the recent exposure of their awful edits on Trump's speech[0].
0. https://factually.co/fact-checks/media/bbc-edits-trumps-spee...
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Well, the US is a "propositional nation", we are told, so of course people are deported if they don't subscribe to the proposition. How else could it be a propositional nation?
> Well, the US is a "propositional nation", we are told, so of course people are deported if they don't subscribe to the proposition. How else could it be a propositional nation?
Nope, I’m fairly clued into politics and anyone wanting to question that can check my post history. I have literally never heard the term “propositional nation” prior to your post.
What does it mean, and where do you intend to move the Overton window while talking about it like it’s common knowledge?
Proposition nation: A nation founded on certain creeds or ideals [1]. A.k.a. a "creedal nation" [2].
You probably heard it called "civic nationalism", which uses different words to say the same. From wikipedia [3, emphasis mine]: a "civic nation" defines itself not by culture but by political institutions and liberal principles, which its citizens pledge to uphold. Membership in the civic nation is open to every person by citizenship, regardless of culture or ethnicity. Those who share these values are considered members of the nation
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proposition_nation - Barbara Perry, 'Hate Crimes' (volume 3, page 117): Because they view the world through a racial lens, white nationalists do not agree with the notion that America is a creedal or 'proposition nation', meaning one whose societal and cultural norms are based on acceptance of the Declaration of Independence and the other founding documents...."
[2] Why America Is a ‘Creedal Nation’ - https://www.wsj.com/opinion/why-america-is-a-creedal-nation-...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism
[flagged]
Free speech means you have the right to campaign for those very things. Criticism is the most fundamental aspect of free speech.
US free speech is not absolute, nor is it freedom from consequence. The consequence for foreign activists pushing foreign agendas may very well be deportation.
No country has an obligation to welcome anyone from any other country, especially those who do not intend to even try and adopt its values and customs, even more so foreign agents who come with the sole intent of association to push the agenda of a party they were members from in their old country into the politics of the new one.
Ahh so the constitution doesn’t apply to non-citizens? The Supreme Court disagrees:
>(protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without)
>due process of law
Is being followed and, if appropriate, the foreign agent will be booted.
Currently, they are quite early in the process still.
Given how many people have been deported this year in violation of judicial orders, and how the secretary of the DHS earlier this year even testified to Congress that they thought "habeas corpus" was a right the president has to unilaterally deport people, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be trying to get out in front of any potential unconstitutional deportations by arguing against them. If the fears turn out to be unfounded, that's a good thing.
Can you please tell us what the phrase “due process of law” means for you so that we are not talking past each other.
I am fairly certain I disagree with your point, but if I am going to disagree, I want to do so based off your opinions and not a strawman of yourself.
> US free speech is not absolute
Correct. As its sole purpose is to prevent the Government from restricting speech for viewpoints it does not like from anyone living under that government. Any laws restricting Free Speech have to be narrowly defined and/or viewpoint agnostic; military secrets, sedition, etc. And those restriction can only be created by law, not a mayor's or governor's or president's whims.
Advocacy or speaking to others, including business owners, with viewpoints the government doesn't like is allowed.
It's the main point of Free Speech -- to prevent the government, and only the government, from censoring or interfering/restraining the expression of opinions. Especially if those opinions are not in alignment with, or favorable to, any sitting government.
This applies to both citizens and those who reside in the US. The person in the article is a US permanent resident.
Oh, I guess we should act like all other countries.
The thing that has made me see red the most when talking with the current populist nativist ideologues is how they crow about America being the best but then point to other countries behavior as defense for their own.
I actually believe that America _was_ the best before this crew took over. That is because we had high barriers and filtered for the competent.
I would be all for 100 foot walls around the border if anyone who managed to cross them got citizenship for the achievement. Instead I am getting a bunch of dipshits who largely live on the largesse of tax receipts from my region of the nation and our equivalents on the other coast, claiming how superior they are while they destroy everything that made us great.
If you want to defend this behavior as being pro free speech, then go fuck yourself for trying to pull this 1984 newspeak shit off