Ohhh RFK Just Posted this on his Tiktok

[mmmmm...beer 807]

https://www.tiktok.com/@robertfkennedyjrofficial/video/7435380152504257822?_t=8rGyx1SWtix&_r=1

I'm sure it was for no reason?

[jonmx 2,429]

What a fascist!  He is going to destroy the fundamental right of mega-corporstions and big government to censor our speech and control the narrative.  This is exactly what our good authoritarian bastard friends feared most.   Free speech!  

What an awesome speech!  God Bless America!

RIP the industrial-government censorship complex! 

[Voltaire 5,316]

Love this. 

Trump has clearly identified the censorship regime that needs reform.

[Voltaire 5,316]

Notice how when RFK says "We're going to listen to whistleblowers and act on their recommendations" the person he chose to put on the screen to highlight that policy is Eric Snowden.

[Mike Hunt 282]

Reality is it never should have been allowed to get to this point

 

[jonmx 2,429]

3 hours ago, Voltaire said:

Notice how when RFK says "We're going to listen to whistleblowers and act on their recommendations" the person he chose to put on the screen to highlight that policy is Eric Snowden.

So...Snowden was a whistleblower and exposed truth.

[shorepatrol 1,870]

[jonmx 2,429]

 

NSA surveillance exposed by Snowden ruled unlawful

A National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program has been ruled unlawful, seven years after it was exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The surveillance of millions of Americans' telephone records first came to light in 2013.

Now, the US Court of Appeals has ruled intelligence leaders who publicly defended the program lied.

And Mr Snowden has said he feels vindicated by the ruling.

He currently lives in exile in Moscow but, last year, expressed his wish to return to the US, where he faces espionage charges over his decision to go public.

“I never imagined that I would live to see our courts condemn the NSA’s activities as unlawful and in the same ruling credit me for exposing them,” Mr Snowden said.

"And yet that day has arrived," he added.

Watch

 

 

 

Advertisement

NSA surveillance exposed by Snowden ruled unlawful

3 September 2020

Share

Save

Getty

 

Edward Snowden wants to go back to the US but faces espionage charges if he returns

A National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program has been ruled unlawful, seven years after it was exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The surveillance of millions of Americans' telephone records first came to light in 2013.

Now, the US Court of Appeals has ruled intelligence leaders who publicly defended the program lied.

And Mr Snowden has said he feels vindicated by the ruling.

• FBI worried that Ring doorbells are spying on police
• Microsoft bars facial recognition sales to police

He currently lives in exile in Moscow but, last year, expressed his wish to return to the US, where he faces espionage charges over his decision to go public.

“I never imagined that I would live to see our courts condemn the NSA’s activities as unlawful and in the same ruling credit me for exposing them,” Mr Snowden said.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

"And yet that day has arrived," he added.

Allow Twitter content?

This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read 

Twitter’s cookie policy

 and 

privacy policy

 before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’.

Accept and continue

Top US intelligence officials had publicly insisted the NSA had never knowingly collected data from private phone records, until Mr Snowden exposed evidence to the contrary in 2013.

Following the revelation, officials said the NSA's surveillance program had played a crucial role in fighting domestic terrorism, including the convictions of Basaaly Saeed Moalin, Ahmed Nasir Taalil Mohamud, Mohamed Mohamud, and Issa Doreh, of San Diego, for providing aid to al-Shabab militants in Somalia.

But, on Wednesday, the Court of Appeals said the claims were "inconsistent with the contents of the classified records" and the program had violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The ruling will not affect the 2013 convictions.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for our privacy rights,” the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement.

"It makes plain that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records violated the Constitution.”

[jerryskids 6,799]

Wow, that's a lot to process!   I agree with the general premise, but I'm concerned with increased government power over private companies, and the changes to 230.

[jonmx 2,429]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Wow, that's a lot to process!   I agree with the general premise, but I'm concerned with increased government power over private companies, and the changes to 230.

These corporate monopolies have been politically targeting conservative speech (deplatforming, shawdow banning, demonitizing) and you are more worried about big corporations who are illegally putting their hands on the scale of our elections than you are with citizens being denied their freedom of speech?  

[Gepetto 1,368]

Wow! Great speech and plan.

[jerryskids 6,799]

40 minutes ago, jonmx said:

These corporate monopolies have been politically targeting conservative speech (deplatforming, shawdow banning, demonitizing) and you are more worried about big corporations who are illegally putting their hands on the scale of our elections than you are with citizens being denied their freedom of speech?  

Kindly go fock yourself.  I said what I was worried about, which is the government injecting itself into speech outlets.  You are happy with it, as long as it satisfies your politics.  I think it's going fine now, and I present the election results as my Exhibit A.

[jonmx 2,429]

18 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Kindly go fock yourself.  I said what I was worried about, which is the government injecting itself into speech outlets.  You are happy with it, as long as it satisfies your politics.  I think it's going fine now, and I present the election results as my Exhibit A.

You are an effing bootlicking idiot.  I am not OK with any censorship.  So go bootlick for your big government fascist corporate bastards.  Who do you think told these corporation to censor you effing ignorant brainwashed fool. 

 

.  

[jerryskids 6,799]

23 minutes ago, jonmx said:

You are an effing bootlicking idiot.  I am not OK with any censorship.  So go bootlick for your big government fascist corporate bastards.  Who do you think told these corporation to censor you effing ignorant brainwashed fool. 

 

.  

You are either a bot or a retard.  I'm generally on your side, if you have a 5th grade level of intelligence to read my posts.  That being said, your "bootlicking" is throwing the gun.  

There are several things in this video that strike me as government overreach.  You don't see it, presumably because you are a bot or a retard, but it's there nonetheless.

[HellToupee 1,776]

3 hours ago, jonmx said:

NSA surveillance exposed by Snowden ruled unlawful

 

I’ve done a complete 180 on Snowden and Assange 

[jonmx 2,429]

35 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You are either a bot or a retard.  I'm generally on your side, if you have a 5th grade level of intelligence to read my posts.  That being said, your "bootlicking" is throwing the gun.  

There are several things in this video that strike me as government overreach.  You don't see it, presumably because you are a bot or a retard, but it's there nonetheless.

Google has near complete control over as gate-keeper of information we see on the internet.  Their ownership of YouTube controls the vast majority of video content watched on the internet.  None of their competitors come even remotely close to competing with them in terms of market share.  Corporations operate as a priviledge subject to government regulation.   The protection that 230 provides them is for operating as a open platform for free speech.  They are not doing that.   Google/YouTube operates as the gatekeeper of information and only allow stuff which favors the authoritarian agenda of the big government/big corporation fascist agenda.

Ok asswipe, why don't you actually state specifically what is wrong with what Trump said.   It is 100 percent protecting free speech for citizens.   Fuk you idiot.  I did not even attack you before your panties got in a bind. I just explained why your position was wrong. 

[Strike 5,546]

@jerryskids  You should give @jonmx a break.  Obviously he feels a bit stronger about some of this stuff than you (or I) do but he's not wrong.  It's just levels of outrage about it.  But he was about the lone voice of reason/conservatism over at FBG's when they had a political forum, constantly getting attacked by the lines of squissy and Tim.  He may have a little PTSD from that forum.  He did yeoman's work there though.

@jonmx Chill out a little dude.  Jerry is good people and for the most part agrees with you on most topics.  He may just be a little more nuanced and/or not believe quite as strongly as you.  That's ok though.  Remember, the complaint at the PSF was their unbalanced treatment of the many opinions that can exist on any given topic.  Here we allow all sides to be heard.  You don't have to go ballistic against everyone who doesn't agree with you 100%.

[jonmx 2,429]

6 hours ago, Strike said:

@jerryskids  You should give @jonmx a break.  Obviously he feels a bit stronger about some of this stuff than you (or I) do but he's not wrong.  It's just levels of outrage about it.  But he was about the lone voice of reason/conservatism over at FBG's when they had a political forum, constantly getting attacked by the lines of squissy and Tim.  He may have a little PTSD from that forum.  He did yeoman's work there though.

@jonmx Chill out a little dude.  Jerry is good people and for the most part agrees with you on most topics.  He may just be a little more nuanced and/or not believe quite as strongly as you.  That's ok though.  Remember, the complaint at the PSF was their unbalanced treatment of the many opinions that can exist on any given topic.  Here we allow all sides to be heard.  You don't have to go ballistic against everyone who doesn't agree with you 100%.

I appreciate your response, but look how the thread went down.  My first response to jerry:

Me:  These corporate   monopolies have been politically targeting  conservative speech (deplatforming, shawdow banning, demonitizing) and you are more worried about big corporations  who are illegally putting their hands on the scale  of our elections than you are with citizens being denied their freedom of speech?  

His:  Kindly go fock yourself.....

Nuanced?  Go fock yourself is not nuanced, it is unhinged.  Ok, so he is worried about changes to section 230.  The change to section 230 Trump is proposing is to enforce the intent of the law, which was allow internet service providers protection as platform provider, instead of being considered liable as a Publisher.  Google by doing stuff like proving links to Harris's campaign when people Google Trump, or YouTube hiding/shadow-banning the Trump-Rogan interview puts them acting more like a Publisher.  It is not quite as bad as de-platforming Trump and banning the Hunter Laptop story as they did in 2020, but they still can't help grossly abusing the protection priviledge they were given and trying to illegally influence the election by selectively allowing/publishing content based on politics.