You're kidding me. Most protests aren't discussed? Ever follow the local news?
As for getting arrested, often it is through violation of laws regarding public disturbance. You don't see crackdowns on every protest and protester do you? Furthermore, protesting is only one of many mediums for public advocacy outside the mainstream. Cherry picking one does not eliminate the existence of the others.
Not cherry picking at all, the results of the protests against the empire and cost of sustaining it speak for themselves. Sure you may not get arrested every time, but that not the important part.
Mind quoting government guidelines that specifically attempt to limit information?
Try reading TOS
The problem is I never said censorship wasn't legally allowed. I said censorship wasn't enforced by the state. Two different things. You are trying to draw a false equivalence that's not there. Just because you can find comparable situations does not mean that the whole system is comparable. There is a difference of proportionality and context.
Laws are legally enforced by the state, no one else can do that. Dont try to redefine what is legal and what is not.
Did I ever say it wasn't? I said that those controls are not implemented by the state and are through multiple competing interests.
Yes they are, in reality the state is not simply the government, the whole system is driven fiscally.
Yes, because that infringes on a more fundamental right of safety. I'm not talking about public safety. I am talking about personal safety.
Now you want to redefine safety?
Evidence? In any case, as unfortunate as those circumstances are, I don't see any arrests that happen because someone said something disagreeable to they system. Again, false equivalence.
You can deny all you want, but its reality not false equivalence.
So when I say that there are problems with the free media system, and when I say the free media system does not guarantee fair, balanced, or recognition of information by the public that is defending it? Who's putting words in whose mouth now? If you disagree though, you'd best tell me what I've said makes you believe that.
You also said its not being controlled since its free, your own words not mine.
Again, rights infringing on more fundamental rights. The "free" media does not define what these rights are though. The law does, and the media can protest it (and it does). Don't conflate the actors.
You are the one who put the media and rights in the same boat which I pointed out is not the same.
Except that wealth concentration wasn't always there, nor was the military industrial complex. You're not going to tell me every American President is the same now are you?
I never said it have always existed with the founding of America, but certainly it exists now and has been getting worse for many years, ever since from a republic to the empire.
Besides, if you're asserting that subversion happened, Obama didn't go into Egypt, or Iran, or Syria, or Yemen, and only dipped his toe in Libya. That's a pretty bad record if you're insisting they practice active subversion.
Please read what I have said. I never said every conflict is the result of US involvement. Certainly US is trying hard to subvert Iran and Syria. Also the Lack of necessary resources at their disposal means its impossible for empire to be involved everywhere militarily not that it doesn't want to. The very fact that the empire is vastly overstretched tell you what their record is. Again You may want to deny it, but its reality.
The media system, if you haven't noticed, also criticizes the "empire", and constantly harps about pulling out from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not the mainstream media, and the harp about Afghanistan and Iraq is about staying there despite the costs involved. Why does the word empire need quotes, America is an empire.
I was offering an alternative interpretation, where, mind you, I openly criticized both. That is hardly a defence.
No you don't, you were just defending the empire and its involvement around the world.
They are foreign lobbies with a lot of influence. Allowance may legitimize that "empire", but it also reigns it in. Dependency is not one way.
Its a corrupt system where the emperor sit at the top, and it only give it more power not less.
*rollseyes* 1)Where did I discuss carving up a foreign country? 2) if that suggestion was brought up by someone, would disagreeing and repudiating that view imply they were "indoctrinated"? 3) Is your insistence that America is an empire itself not "indoctrination"?
It was a debate in a formal educational setting not a street corner discussion by random strangers with no agendas. As for the empire, its not an ideological indoctrination just look at the facts about America and its role in the world.
Seriously, let's drop this discussion. I already pointed out that no one is not "indoctrinated". The difference is whether we're all forced to believe one thing or if we can choose to believe what we want.
That make no sense, indoctrination is not a choice to begin with, you are creating choices where there is none.
And would you like to define clearly what "this power behind" is? Because so far, while you've been insisting that there must be "powers behind them", I have been pointing out instances where different "powers" have actually hurt each other. You may keep trying to spin out of that by going "it's all within a goal post", but what would actually qualify as outside it if you keep on moving those goalposts?
I have already told you whats outside the goalposts. As for the true powers, just take look at the banksters and the military industrial complex.
And last I checked, Rupert Murdoch wasn't looking too good in the UK. Did someone decide that Rupert Murdoch wasn't one of those spooky powers behind the veil?
When it gets too big they could not longer hide it. He certainly had power and influence, with the cover ups and involvement of politicians and the police. Dont forget the unexplained death of a former journalist involved ruled simply as suicide.
People who want the government to cease to exist, Ron Paul, the likes.
Hes one guy that doesn't seem to be part of it, but that doesn't prove anything. And no hes not saying the government should cease to exist, I have no idea where you get that from.
You underestimate how much those events actually hurt Bush's ability to conduct the war in Iraq, and public support, which btw, if we are to believe the "they went in there for oil and American influence" notion, would be contrary to those interests of your mysterious powers behind the scene.
Hurt what ability, the Iraq war did not stop or slow down because of them, it didnt change anything. I have no idea where you are going with oil and influence part and being contrary to what you implied that you dont believe to exist.
You can argue it's an "illusion", but when Rolling Stones magazine reports on General McChrystal bashing the Obama administration, that has real damaging effects. When the entire media is focused on Watergate, that has real damaging effects. When Valerie Plain's identity is leaked by the White House, that has real damaging effects. When the NYT reports that big business hardly pays taxes, that has real damaging effects. When they report on the Lewinski scandal and Clinton gets impeached, that has real damaging effects.
What damaging effects? You live in a democrat vs republican dichotomy that cant see whats going on on the outside.
You can call these distractions, but it hardly seems like the political institutions and the media institutions are united in common cause when one can seriously set back the other's agenda.
Of course it doesn't seem like it, because of this illusion of dichotomy.
Please point where where I put words in your mouth. As far as I could see, I was merely stating that everyone is brainwashed by something. Nowhere did I say you made the contrary claim. "Saying that"=/="You were saying that".
I have never said that brainwashing only exists in American media.
What do you think I was saying then?
1) I wasn't responding to you regarding google, 2) I wasn't explaining their "real intentions". I was pointing out their behaviors, regardless of whether you see it as moral or not, was not that unusual for a profit seeking corporation.
Obviously you are defending them, you were definitely trying to clarifying their intentions not behavior.
All private interests will give themselves a pass. Do they parade around pretending that free media is the best thing since sliced bread? Yes. Does that mean they're right? Not necessarily. However, just because the propagate a myth of free media, doesn't mean that there aren't real and significant difference. In the case of information restriction there is a difference of means, proportionality and consequence, which is substantive and important, and creates a different outcome. I did not say interests in a free media system don't manipulate information for their own ends. I am saying that the power to manipulate is not a monopoly, and with the right tools and conditions anyone could do it. That clash of different interests creates a more open system. Whether that is good or bad is another matter, but the fact is I do have the option of airing my views in public without being punished.
Again its not free and you do get punished. And of course with the right conditions anyone can do anything, thats a lame example.
