The Mueller investigation.

[Schmelzer]

If the twitter accounts were transparently Russian then there would not have been a problem and nor would the bots even be considered by their creators. They were used to defraud Twitter/Facebook users of any sense of systemic integrity or trust in the internet as a medium for serious discourse.

No. He has simply done the same as in Russia. The only difference was that there was no necessity to create fake Russian bank accounts, the trolls or the firm could have used own accounts.

What is wrong with being a proud Russian and prepared to disclose your true nationality? Is there something wrong with being Russian?

Nothing, except that you will not get many followers as a Russian in a black lives matter or LBGT community to make money with advertising.

Do Russians know how to tell the truth? Or are they just lost in Putin's web(s) of deception?

Much better than Americans. In Russian discussions, I hear much less ad hominem, much more arguments about the content.

Putin is a master at playing peoples fear and thus makes his call to be trusted extremely dubious at best.

Nonsense.

The press are probably the most prolific and patronized publisher on the net.

Maybe for you. I regularly read only one German (pro-NATO, as all others too) newspaper, and only for the single reason that they have no pre-publication censorship of comments, so that I can quite freely comment there. Every other contact with the press is via accidental links from other sources.

I didn't write that.

I know. I translated this statement into reality. If you have free speech, you will have any form of misuse of free speech, like "being exploited by nefarious actors". You cannot fight an obvious, trivial consequence of free speech without restricting free speech.

It is the deception, fraud and associated scamming that is . The use of false identity, exploiting anonymity, to harmful advantage etc that is. All of which Russians in particular have a significant reputation for. You know, doping, cheating, deception...etc all sanctioned by a government that is likewise inclined

No. Anonymity and pseudonymity is a necessity. Without anonymity and pseudonymity, there is no free speech. And I know what I'm talking about, one of the best analytics in the Donbass war, who has predicted not only the Novorussian counteroffensive but even the place where it will happen, a few weeks before it has happened, was a pseudonymous Ukrainian blogger, yurasumy. Later he emigrated to Russia, and after his family emigrated too, his clear name became known, but at that time this was a question of survival for him. (BTW, it does not make much sense to repeat all time that you are a victim of anti-Russian propaganda. A discussion with you becomes in this way as boring as a discussion with an antisemite who repeats all the time what he thinks the Jews are famous for. I have no problem at all talking about general characteristic properties of various nations, including Russians and Jews, but not if these are boring repetitions of the anti-Russian or antisemitic propaganda.)

insects.... hee hee... are you sure you are not Russian?

This is simply the official Cuban position, see https://qz.com/1113692/cuba-sonic-a...ets-and-cicadas-for-injuries-to-us-diplomats/ (And, different from those inside the Western propaganda bubble, Russians receive such information too.)

 

[billvon]

and now we have an apparent nerve agent attack in the UK with a Made in Russia label attached as some sort of message...

Which our Secretary of State rightly condemned in very strong language. Tillerson called Russia “an irresponsible force of instability in the world, acting with open disregard for the sovereignty of other states and the life of their citizens.” He was then fired by Trump.

There couldn't be a clearer indication of how much Trump is under Putin's thumb than that.

 

[iceaura]

The time when there was no state control of the internet at all was the best time of the internet.

And the best time of the British Monarchy was when Sir Lancelot fought for freedom and justice as King Arthur's champion, in the days of the Knights of the Round Table.
Most people locate their mythical Edens and legendary times a bit longer ago than 1996.

You cannot fight an obvious, trivial consequence of free speech without restricting free speech.

You continue to pretend that the crimes indicted by Mueller were matters of speech. That is more or less equivalent to pretending that people indicted for organizing a bank robbery were being persecuted for speaking their opinions about bank security procedures.

This is simply the official Cuban position, see https://qz.com/1113692/cuba-sonic-a...ets-and-cicadas-for-injuries-to-us-diplomats/ (And, different from those inside the Western propaganda bubble, Russians receive such information too.)

And you believe this - you take it seriously? You think a four day exposure to a distant 74 decibel cricket buzz is capable of causing brain damage in people?

I promise you, the official Cubans don't. They aren't idiots, and they certainly wouldn't want to kill their growing tourist industry with one blow like that.

The original role of the crickets was as a simple explanation of a buzzing sound - faint in the background - that American investigators had found when analyzing recordings of the sounds in the rooms where the brain damage was suffered. The finding was used to dismiss the possibility that the buzz indicated the operation of nefarious machinery.

To present the Cubans as seriously offering that as an explanation of the brain damage people suffered is to accept an accusation against the Cuban government. If true, it would be harsh criticism of the Cubans - it would amount to an accusation of deliberately and insultingly transparent cover-up of an assault.

btw: We have a familiar pattern from you, here. AP, your source, is a Western news source - all its info is inside the Western propaganda bubble. That's where you got that - from inside the Western agitprop bubble. And inside that bubble, you found a claim that the Cuban government was trying to pass off brain damage as caused by cricket buzzing. And you swallowed. You bought it.

 

[Tiassa]

I know. I translated this statement into reality. If you have free speech, you will have any form of misuse of free speech, like "being exploited by nefarious actors". You cannot fight an obvious, trivial consequence of free speech without restricting free speech.

In the first place, you are an unreliable "translator", as such.

To the other, you demonstrate the suicide pact. Free speech, being an inherent human right of society, is not a suicide pact. Additionally, your inherent advocacy of fraud only further erodes your reliability.

Because the great thing about free speech is that if you ever get your way, you're free to blame others for the resulting catastrophe, because it would be their damn fault for listening to you, for not stopping you.

You'll find plenty saying, been there, done that↱; they don't bother cutting to the chase, but instead are smart enough to skip it altogether↱.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Schmelzer,
Would I be correct in believing that you would consider the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats (gone within 7 days) and freezing of Russian Assets etc from the UK to be some sort of grand propaganda exercise?

Some sort of harmless minor and trivial event as an over reaction to something equally trivial as in the poisoning of a number of UK citizens with a USSR created nerve agent?

Notes: Putin's popularity took a dive of up to 15% points a few days ago...according to some other "propaganda" sources.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The original role of the crickets was as a simple explanation of a buzzing sound - faint in the background - that American investigators had found when analyzing recordings of the sounds in the rooms where the brain damage was suffered. The finding was used to dismiss the possibility that the buzz indicated the operation of nefarious machinery.

Conspiracy theory:
There is every indication, this event and countless others that a completely new radical hi tech weapons system, possibly fired from orbit or high altitude aircraft (line of sight may not be necessary ) has been developed by unidentified actors and has been and is being used as extreme leverage on leaders around the globe. ( including Trump)
The Cuban embassy incident, was/could be, merely a demonstration to reinforce some of the weapons coercive potential.

As an aside:
The Russians may be silly, stupid even at times but I doubt they would be so stupid as to use and leave ample evidence of a clearly identifiable Russian nerve agent only to fail in their attempt at assassination.
Of the millions of ways to assassinate someone why would they use a "Made in Russia " only nerve agent?
Why did the assassination attempt fail when "over kill" would normally be the outcome?
Just on that rational alone I seriously doubt that the Russians are responsible for it....

However the UK can only deal with what they have and a temporary (one would hope) reaction to cool relationships is justified.

 

[Schmelzer]

And the best time of the British Monarchy was when Sir Lancelot fought for freedom and justice as King Arthur's champion, in the days of the Knights of the Round Table.
Most people locate their mythical Edens and legendary times a bit longer ago than 1996.

The point being? I identify my ideal with something I have experienced myself so that I can compare.

You continue to pretend that the crimes indicted by Mueller were matters of speech.

Yes, and I continue to say this until somebody gives real arguments, explaining what these guys have done beyond the use of fakes to open bank accounts which is not simply free speech. What you have offered now are cheap polemics of type "That is more or less equivalent to pretending that people indicted for organizing a bank robbery were being persecuted for speaking their opinions about bank security procedures."

And you believe this - you take it seriously? You think a four day exposure to a distant 74 decibel cricket buzz is capable of causing brain damage in people?
I promise you, the official Cubans don't. They aren't idiots, and they certainly wouldn't want to kill their growing tourist industry with one blow like that.

I have given you the link. I have heard the sound there, and I can understand that this is a very nasty sound and can create a headache. For American snowflakes, I would not wonder that it can cause even brain damage. And I find it plausible that these are such insects. What you think about this I don't care about.

btw: We have a familiar pattern from you, here. AP, your source, is a Western news source - all its info is inside the Western propaganda bubble. That's where you got that - from inside the Western agitprop bubble. And inside that bubble, you found a claim that the Cuban government was trying to pass off brain damage as caused by cricket buzzing. And you swallowed. You bought it.

I read it somewhere else, outside this bubble, in a language you are unable to read and found this explanation funny but otherwise unimportant. Once this created some objection here, I put a few related words into google to find something in English acceptable for the readers inside your agitprop bubble. This is, indeed, something I often do. Any problem with this?

To the other, you demonstrate the suicide pact. Free speech, being an inherent human right of society, is not a suicide pact. Additionally, your inherent advocacy of fraud only further erodes your reliability.

No. I do not propose any suicide pact. Free speech is not a suicide pact, it forbids imprisoning people for what they say, but does not forbid, say, a forum to moderate and ban participants. To be worth something, discussions have to follow rules - of courtesy, politeness, avoidance of ad hominem, off-topic, spam, this is something very difficult to reach. But those unhappy with these rules should have the freedom to create own communities, where they define the rules of behavior. Those who have the better arguments are not afraid of free speech. They know, if they err, and the discussions show this, they win themselves, if they change their own position after this.

You, unfortunately, seem unable to argue without defamations. I do not advocate any fraud, I have clearly stated that this is bad behavior. But I have also evaluated the seriousness of this particular case of fraud, and found that it is a minor case.

Because the great thing about free speech is that if you ever get your way, you're free to blame others for the resulting catastrophe, because it would be their damn fault for listening to you, for not stopping you.

Nonsense. Every human being is responsible for what he is doing. To blame society for whatever they do is something responsible people leave to snowflakes.

 

[Tiassa]

No. I do not propose any suicide pact. Free speech is not a suicide pact, it forbids imprisoning people for what they say, but does not forbid, say, a forum to moderate and ban participants. To be worth something, discussions have to follow rules - of courtesy, politeness, avoidance of ad hominem, off-topic, spam, this is something very difficult to reach. But those unhappy with these rules should have the freedom to create own communities, where they define the rules of behavior. Those who have the better arguments are not afraid of free speech. They know, if they err, and the discussions show this, they win themselves, if they change their own position after this.

You, unfortunately, seem unable to argue without defamations. I do not advocate any fraud, I have clearly stated that this is bad behavior. But I have also evaluated the seriousness of this particular case of fraud, and found that it is a minor case.

Let us be clear: You advocate fraud.

Nonsense. Every human being is responsible for what he is doing. To blame society for whatever they do is something responsible people leave to snowflakes.

The problem with being a fraud advocate is that nothing you say is reliable, because people know you advocate fraud.

 

[Schmelzer]

Schmelzer,
Would I be correct in believing that you would consider the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats (gone within 7 days) and freezing of Russian Assets etc from the UK to be some sort of grand propaganda exercise?
Some sort of harmless minor and trivial event as an over reaction to something equally trivial as in the poisoning of a number of UK citizens with a USSR created nerve agent?

The poisoning itself is, of course, a propaganda exercise.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/03/theresa-mays-45-minutes-claim.html
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/03/theresa-mays-novichok-claims-fall-apart.html

The only information which suggests that it is not simply an anti-Russian Litvinenko remake is the Steele connection.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...n-spy-sergei-skripal-close-consultant-linked/
There was, obviously, a lot with the Steele dossier not going as planned. So, there may have been a need to get rid of some witnesses. Especially if they get a suspect visit from Moscow ...

 

[Schmelzer]

Let us be clear: You advocate fraud.

Let it be clear: You defame.

 

[Tiassa]

Let it be clear: You defame.

Make-believe?

Yeah, the best the fraud advocate can come up with is make-believe.

You see, that's the problem with being a fraud advocate:

I know. I translated this statement into reality. If you have free speech, you will have any form of misuse of free speech, like "being exploited by nefarious actors". You cannot fight an obvious, trivial consequence of free speech without restricting free speech.

This is you, justifying your own attempted deception.

Furthermore, within that flaccid justification you include fraud as free speech. When speech is fashioned particularly to deceive or otherwise disrupt communication, it is anticommunicative. It is paradoxical to call upon the institutions of soceity to destroy themselves as such. Raw assertion disregarding function is either a matter of ignorance or, well, other ignorance.

So, you know, do better.

Because when you advocate fraud, your speech is received accordingly. Furthermore, when you get caught attempting deception, and then attempt to justify yourself, yeah, people will notice and respond accordingly. Antisociality is antisocial, and watching people call upon socialization and society to coddle antisociality is a curious phenomenon; malady generally doesn't bother trying to justify itself, so watching people enjoy societal empowerment while advocating the decay and destruction of civilized society is anthropological snack food; we've seen so many variations of it over time, and every once in a while society distills such a brew as this antisocial political demand that society bow and scrape for antisociability.

American society is exclusively not a suicide pact. Most of the world's nations can figure out that whatever else they do, some manner of perpetuity and posterity is part of the plan; that is to say, as you encourage societies to destroy themselves, don't be surprised when people call out the antisociality, nor when they denounce the cruel stupidity.

 

[iceaura]

Yes, and I continue to say this until somebody gives real arguments, explaining what these guys have done beyond the use of fakes to open bank accounts which is not simply free speech.

Read the indictments. They are right in front of you. Not one of the eight crimes involves speech in any role except evidence and means.

The point being? I identify my ideal with something I have experienced myself so that I can compare.

No such internet ever existed.
The freedom you experienced was while the US government and university system was still running the show.

What you have offered now are cheap polemics of type

That's an argument, not a polemic. I'm trying to get through to someone who refuses to read the indictments, and therefore has no idea what crimes are involved.
You keep babbling about "free speech" - it's completely irrelevant. Of course they had free speech - what they said was not the crime. They are not accused of saying bad things.

I read it somewhere else, outside this bubble, in a language you are unable to read and found this explanation funny but otherwise unimportant. Once this created some objection here, I put a few related words into google to find something in English acceptable for the readers inside your agitprop bubble. This is, indeed, something I often do. Any problem with this?

I found your claim that this kind of stuff is not found in the American bubble, illustrated with an AP link, amusing.
But not my problem - I'm not that gullible.
The only new info now is from your claim to have believed that from the propaganda sources you claim expertise in evaluating - there was a possibility that only US professional agitprop was fooling you. This shows you're just as big a sucker for non-US bullshit, whenever you're ignorant and think ignorance doesn't matter (biology, climate, race, etc)

I have given you the link. I have heard the sound there, and I can understand that this is a very nasty sound and can create a headache. For American snowflakes, I would not wonder that it can cause even brain damage. And I find it plausible that these are such insects. What you think about this I don't care about.

. Americans - and Canadians, Swedes, etc - have been visiting Cuba and staying in hotels for hundreds of years. It's a tourist destination - it was going to be Las Vegas only bigger and with beaches until Castro showed up - and tourist destinations don't like bad publicity.
If you think the Cuban government would allow that claim to be publicized if there were any chance of it's being true you are not thinking.
If you believe an outdoor cricket at 74 decibels can single out one group of people and cause brain damage equivalent to the aftermath of a concussion in dozens of them - but nobody else - inside their hotel rooms in Cuba you're an idiot.
But then, you keep talking about Mueller's investigation as if nothing much were happening - as if these bits and pieces of stuff along the way were the whole show.

 

[spidergoat]

Of the millions of ways to assassinate someone why would they use a "Made in Russia " only nerve agent?

It's a message.

 

[exchemist]

It's a message.

Exactly. As with the polonium chosen to assassinate Litvinenko, it is a deliberate choice of an agent so exotic that only an organ of the state could have had access to it. That enables the Kremlin to convey the message that we can kill you - horribly and slowly - at long range and at a time of our choice, if you cross us. In the Skripal case it involves murdering the family as well, for good measure.

One can see in the Russian response - a mixture of sarcasm and contempt, with zero effort to engage on the substantive issue of Novichok - that this is not the stance of an innocent country interested in clearing its name internationally. Far from it: the denials are ritual, while the message from these gangsters is clear.

The worst of it is that a sizeable proportion of the Russian population seems to admire such behaviour. It certainly will not reduce Putin's popularity in the forthcoming show-election. These people have lived so long under secret police regimes (from the Tsar's Okhrana onward) that they think it is normal, even to the extent of choosing a secret policeman to be their head of state!

 

[Schmelzer]

Being unable to present any evidence for the defamation that I advocate fraud,

Furthermore, within that flaccid justification you include fraud as free speech.

No. I simply say that if you have free speech, you will have the misuse of free speech too. This is not in any way advocation of this misuse but simply remembering you straightforward and obvious things.

It is quite clear, at least for me, that you don't want free speech. Except, maybe, as a propaganda phrase without content.

Read the indictments. They are right in front of you.

I have. I have extracted those things which are clearly objectionable and without a doubt illegal - stealing identities of real people (instead of simply using pseudonyms), using stolen identities to open bank accounts. What remains? If I also extract everything which is simply cheap namecalling for free speech, nothing.

No such internet ever existed.
The freedom you experienced was while the US government and university system was still running the show.

I have used it in Europe, not America. It was de facto free. Nobody cared about censorship.

That's an argument, not a polemic. I'm trying to get through to someone who refuses to read the indictments, and therefore has no idea what crimes are involved.
You keep babbling about "free speech" - it's completely irrelevant. Of course they had free speech - what they said was not the crime. They are not accused of saying bad things.

Feel free to explain to me what they were accused of if we ignore the obviously illegal trivialities (stolen identities and bank accounts). If you tell me that without stolen identities and faked bank accounts there would not have been any indictment, fine. If not, tell me what was the crime. I have read the indictment, quoted it, several times different parts, but you answered this was not what was the wrongdoing, but only the evidence for the wrongdoing. Fine. But what was the wrongdoing? This remains unclear to me. I posted similar behavior which should be IMHO legal, to clarify it this could be used as evidence to whatever wrongdoing too. No answer.

I found your claim that this kind of stuff is not found in the American bubble, illustrated with an AP link, amusing.

Except that I have not made such a claim. Learn to read. I have simply countered the conspiracy theory of #190 with a simple explanation. An explanation which I have read outside your bubble. I have not claimed that it was not published inside the bubble too. Quantum Quack obviously has not heard about it. You don't like it. Your choice, not my problem. I have googled to find something inside your bubble and linked what I have found.

If you believe an outdoor cricket at 74 decibels can single out one group of people and cause brain damage equivalent to the aftermath of a concussion in dozens of them - but nobody else - inside their hotel rooms in Cuba you're an idiot.

You seem to believe I read all the BS your media write about this? I couldn't care less when I have seen some short info about the guys in the US embassy going insane and had a good laugh reading that explanation, that's all. These are things one reads incidentally in the "jokes about stupid Americans" section of the Runet, nothing one seriously cares about.

Whatever, the sound is nasty, yes, you can get a headache from this, if it is there all the time, I had my own experiences with such sounds, that's really somewhere sometimes not nice. And the sound in the AP link was similar. That snowflakes are expected to present this as "equivalent to the aftermath of a concussion" if you ask me. But, ok, believe in "a new type of weapon" if you like.

 

[Schmelzer]

Exactly. As with the polonium chosen to assassinate Litvinenko, it is a deliberate choice of an agent so exotic that only an organ of the state could have had access to it. That enables the Kremlin to convey the message that we can kill you - horribly and slowly - at long range and at a time of our choice, if you cross us. In the Skripal case it involves murdering the family as well, for good measure.

I think the other explanation is more natural. The extravagant weapons to kill them was chosen by the MI6 to make accusations against Russia plausible. Only a state actor could have done it, Russia somehow has a motive, so it was Russia.

One can see in the Russian response - a mixture of sarcasm and contempt, with zero effort to engage on the substantive issue of Novichok - that this is not the stance of an innocent country interested in clearing its name internationally. Far from it: the denials are ritual, while the message from these gangsters is clear.

The reason for sarcasm is clear - the Russian were speculating not if but what type of fake attack would be started by the West before the elections, and how would the West destroy the championship.

Now they see a Russian spy, who has been in a Russian jail for 6 years (where evil FSB could have slowly tortured him to death without any risk if he liked), they see him killed by a chemical weapon in 8 miles from the Porton Down chemical weapon laboratory of the British military, learn about the Steele dossier connection, and hear from their own spies that there is an unofficial convention between the security services that spies which have been exchanged are tabu, and, as well, family members. Such rules of honor are quite popular in Russian culture. So, no, nobody would admire such a thing, nobody believes this primitive fake story.

What RT has done was, btw, the following: A live translation from the UNSC meeting, with all the Western accusations, live translated, no necessity for a commentary beyond the answer of the Russian speaker, Nebensia. Russians are clever enough to understand these accusations being completely stupid. I have put a link to it into the comments of a German newspaper, it was edited away.

 

[exchemist]

I think the other explanation is more natural. The extravagant weapons to kill them was chosen by the MI6 to make accusations against Russia plausible. Only a state actor could have done it, Russia somehow has a motive, so it was Russia.

The reason for sarcasm is clear - the Russian were speculating not if but what type of fake attack would be started by the West before the elections, and how would the West destroy the championship.

Now they see a Russian spy, who has been in a Russian jail for 6 years (where evil FSB could have slowly tortured him to death without any risk if he liked), they see him killed by a chemical weapon in 8 miles from the Porton Down chemical weapon laboratory of the British military, learn about the Steele dossier connection, and hear from their own spies that there is an unofficial convention between the security services that spies which have been exchanged are tabu, and, as well, family members. Such rules of honor are quite popular in Russian culture. So, no, nobody would admire such a thing, nobody believes this primitive fake story.

What RT has done was, btw, the following: A live translation from the UNSC meeting, with all the Western accusations, live translated, no necessity for a commentary beyond the answer of the Russian speaker, Nebensia. Russians are clever enough to understand these accusations being completely stupid. I have put a link to it into the comments of a German newspaper, it was edited away.

Feeble stuff. From the troll factory in St Petersburg, no doubt.

 

[Tiassa]

Being unable to present any evidence for the defamation that I advocate fraud,

Well says you, who is unreliable:

No. I simply say that if you have free speech, you will have the misuse of free speech too. This is not in any way advocation of this misuse but simply remembering you straightforward and obvious things.

What you said:

I know. I translated this statement into reality. If you have free speech, you will have any form of misuse of free speech, like "being exploited by nefarious actors". You cannot fight an obvious, trivial consequence of free speech without restricting free speech.

Two points:

• "I know. I translated this statement into reality." — As I said, this is you, justifying your own attempted deception.

• "You cannot fight an obvious, trivial consequence of free speech without restricting free speech." — Your formulation includes fraud as free speech: If you cannot fight an "obvious, trivial consequence of free speech", as such, "without restricting free speech", then the consequence is, as noted, included in free speech.​

That you must misrepresent yourself—("This is not in any way advocation of this misuse but simply remembering you straightforward and obvious things")—in order to support your lie—("No.")—only reiterates the problem of inherent unreliability you highlight by advocating fraud.

Try it this way: I can argue that one plus one equals three; there is, in fact, a metaphysical, nearly semiotic, context in which this is true; the one thing I should not do, however, is call it math.

Furthermore, the prospect that one considers fraud a "trivial" consequence of free speech makes its own point. And deception is a consequence of expression, which exists according to will and without regard to society.

This points back to a particular and very common error. Sometimes it feels like people are trying to take the concept of, "Question everything", to its limits, but none who require, as a consequence of such exploration, the infliction of nihilistic outcomes on other people have failed to properly question themselves. It's perfectly human; we go through it from time to time. Crowley, for instance. He went through it as a young man, decided later his literary produce from that period was juvenilia and so denounced it, went through it again, decided it was an affirmation of his genius, and eventually went through it again and might have started believing himself divine. It's easy to take his advice if one is him; over the course, the connection 'twixt "thyself Ex-tinguish" and predatory hedonism pretty much explains why we can't all be like Crowley.

(If the grumpy old men of my youth, fretting about moral relativism, failed to question themselves—and why wouldn't they, as the Question Everything generation was not yet aged to that sort of dissatisfaction, and they, too, seem to have utterly failed that self-examination—it is for lack of imagination; moral relativism would empower the escalations of evil inherent in their outlook which they would otherwise pretend precisely contained through complicated arrangements of philosophical exceptions and psychological accommodations; that is to say it would empower their sin against their better angels, yet they could never imagine a world without their particular sins; it is perfectly human, but also incredibly dangerous.)​

Nonetheless, fraud exists even without free speech, which is not a thoroughly empty observation; the proposition that restricting fraud inherently restricts free speech only works if one presupposes such freedom exists in a wholly independent state, a raw concept of free speech utterly disconnected from any context by which it might exist. In that context, it's all free speech: money spent buying politicians, the punch in the teeth at the pub, even the part when journalists critical of the tyrant are murdered. And, yeah, we get it. It's lawless despotism, open predation. That is, you describe not a social contract, but an antisocial contract.

It is quite clear, at least for me, that you don't want free speech. Except, maybe, as a propaganda phrase without content.

Civilized society is not a suicide pact. The social contract is not obliged to self-destruction for your particular satisfaction.

 

[iceaura]

Whatever, the sound is nasty, yes, you can get a headache from this, if it is there all the time, I had my own experiences with such sounds, that's really somewhere sometimes not nice. And the sound in the AP link was similar.

It isn't that bad - cicadas are worse, lots of Americans are familiar with them.
The injured did not complain about the cricket noise.
Cuba has been a tourist and travel destination, with northerners staying in hotels - including tens of thousands of Americans - for hundreds of years. This one group and nobody else past or present has ever suffered this kind of brain injury during their stay.
And if you think 74 decibel outdoor crickets can inflect brain damage on people inside hotel rooms - just some of them, not affecting others - you are an idiot.

That snowflakes are expected to present this as "equivalent to the aftermath of a concussion" if you ask me.

That description - "equivalent to the aftermath of concussion" - was the description from the Penn State doctors who did the brain scans and tested the mental functioning of the injured people. It's a medical diagnosis - there was no speculation about cause, except that blows to the head and similar trauma were ruled out - no bruising or external injury visible.

I have. I have extracted those things which are clearly objectionable and without a doubt illegal - stealing identities of real people (instead of simply using pseudonyms), using stolen identities to open bank accounts. What remains?

The conspiracy charge only - one charge.
Nothing about speech.

I have used it in Europe, not America. It was de facto free. Nobody cared about censorship.

That's when the US government and university system - the people who invented it - were still running it.

Feel free to explain to me what they were accused of if we ignore the obviously illegal trivialities (stolen identities and bank accounts).

Those are felonies, and more importantly entitle Mueller to obtain bank records. He's following the money.
In addition, there is a conspiracy charge - a milder charge much harder to prove in court, but Mueller has enough evidence to obtain an indictment, and the indictment allows Mueller still more access - now to phone records and email stuff. He's following up the chain of command.
Nothing about speech.

 

[sculptor]

A game of criminal-procedure whack-a-mole?