These are owned by the russian government. Putin has said that they are part of "core organisations for strategic ilportance". In other words, they are vital for spreadinh Russian propaganda. Just look at what they are doing.. spreading lies about everything that serves the interest of russia. They undermine the eu, nato, ukraine... They have been caught lying many times, but they still have a large audience who doesnt care or know. Even if the lies are proven false later, they can still do damage. We should not allow russia to destabilise and undermine our countries. These "news" should be banned. Russian propaganda should be recognised as such, and it should not be allowed in western countries. It is a matter of national security. Russia is waging an information war, we must fight back.
And the Russians would argue the other way around: That it's the West that's spreading propaganda, and that their outlets are neutral. In reality, both outlets are spewing BS to the people gullible enough to consume them. In my opinion, a truly informed person cross-checks and verifies the information he's presented with. He also has a clear outlook to the world around him, to be able to make his own judgments. The difference between thinkers and non-thinkers, suckers and learners is that one observes everything and the other observes what they were told.
Yeah, but most people are not thinkers. A signoficant part of the population are basically sheep. These people ard never going to be the rational people we want them to. Stupid and gullible people exist and will always exist. We need to act accordingly. We need to shield them from harmful views. Russia is spreading lies about the eu and nato, weakening them. They spread lies about ukraine, so that the west will not help them. There is no reason to allow this. There is every reason to ban it. Its national security. When an enemy can spread lies to a large part of your population, that is dangerous.
Russia probably is stretching the truth on the EU. But IMO, not NATO. NATO, originally created by America's Dwight.D.Eisenhower was originally a military and financial bloc of assistance to the European countries, to prevent USSR expansion.(And also to help them recover. Not allowing the kind of go-it-alone mentality that allowed Hitler to rise). Now, we saw NATO in Africa(Libya) and the expansion into the Mediterranean(Romania and the Ukrainian concerns) Russia is justified to say: This is now a military junta against the Russians. The solution, would be to ask Russia to join NATO. That would be smart and pragmatic, if NATO is truly bound by its original mission. The Russians could provide the security for the Eastern Bloc states, and since NATO countries are bound in pact not to attack another, it's also security for those nations feeling "threatened" by Russia. As for Ukraine individually, that's an economic mess between the Russians and the EU, and make no mistake: The EU wanted to absorb Ukraine just as much. Talks about a free, democratic Ukraine are nonsense. Ukraine is caught between two buyers, and the Ukrainian government chose the Russians, that's when all hostilities broke out. When those didn't respect the legitimate wishes of the Ukrainian government(ironically) As an American, unlike Victoria Nuland, I have no fight in Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't interest me, nor does Crimea. Chancellor Merkel once wanted to pursue a diplomatic solution between EU, and Russia(and which should include Ukraine). As it regards these diplomatic efforts, I'd be willing to lend my assistance. But beyond this, the US has no interest(or should have no interest) in the Caucasus and the Black Sea. If we want to prevent a replay of WWII, we must be a strong-handed but willing partner to the Russians. We must respect each oher's mutual interests and find a way to resolve both of them.
Nato is aimed at russia. This has never been a secret. There was hope nato would become irrelevant after the ussr failed... but russia gave it reason to exist again. Russia could never join nato.. that would just miss the whole point of nato. Nato exist because of russia's actions. Nato expands because of russia. Its always russia, who just keeps wanting to be an enemy, like an unruly teen. It is acutally very simple: russia wants to conquer other countries. We want the countries to be free. Its that simple. Russia thinks it has a right to decide wjat their nieghbors should do. We think they should decide for themselves. We want to live in peace and trade. Russia wants to dominate others like ussr did. We should as far as possible limit russia. Not negotiate. Russia is an enemy. They dont have much to bargain with anyways. What are they gonna do? Start ww3 over some place in eastern europe no one cares about? No, i dont think so. But anyhow.. the point is, ban their propaganda.
How weak can we be? Can't work to see the PURPOSE of free speech manifest, so instead promote banning deceptive speech. Pitiful.
This is poor logic. it's not about being "weak" or "afraid" of russian propaganda. it's very simple: What do we gain by allowing this? nothing. What do we lose? We allow russia to influence our populations. Conclusion, net negative, therefore ban it. Simple. this is information war. we are at war. we need to fight back. Allowing open lies was never the point of free speech to begin with.
OMG! Fight back with nothing? Are you clueless? Here is what we fight back with. We replace that BS with something having massive authority, then we agree upon it giving it more authority from our contemporary philosophical assembly. Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights? Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? I can hardly believe I have to explain this to you because you've seen what I've been doing for over a year. Fight back? Holy crap, with these concepts originating in the history in American law, there is no "fight", there is only victory, IF we have the brains to recognize the authority of the law of the land by which we conduct our lawful and peaceful revolution.
I dont care for Sputnik. I realize they are trying to counter the US onslaught of pro-war nonsense which is the MSM. And - as you know I am a stickler for sources - but like CNN - RT, Wikileaks, Anonymous, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Politico, Drudge, Progressive Voices, Prison Planet, Clear Channel, ABC/CBS News, most newspapers ARE Establishment andgovernment fronts. And now even one of my favourite sources of the past WSWS.org - judging by their radio podcast I am afraid - has ruined the credibility of their once revered site, by true Progressives like myself, and has a great reputation for rare, great journalism, expose, and news analysis - has pulled back the curtain revealing that WSWS.org is NOT WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE. This is going to upset a lot of people here, but this is the REALITY of Big Brother society. Astroturf and U.S. Govrnment fronts dominate the media landscape, and Sputnik I feel like RT comes from the TOP down, not the grass roots it appears.
So CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, AL JAZEERA, and CSPAN are all fronts for the U.S. Government. Doesn't THAT bother you? "CNN has the contract to provide a special internal news broadcast to the National Security Agency (NSA), per Bamford's book, Body of Secrets. CNN has been dubbed the CIA News Network. Military's media manipulation demands more investigation In March 2000, FAIR and international news organizations revealed that CNN had allowed military propaganda specialists from an Army PSYOPS unit to work as interns in the news division of its Atlanta headquarters. Time Magazine was run by Henry Luce, known to be a CIA operative and close friends with the heads of CIA Cold Warriors, like Richard Helms. CNN-Time-Warner CEO, prior to working for NY law firm (below), was counsel for Nelson Rockefeller and a senior White House aide under President Gerald Ford. Ford was on the JFK coverup Warren Commission. (Two unusual prominent Americans served on the Warren Commission, "investigating" the murder of JFK, and concluding it was a lone gunman. One was former CIA Director Allen Dulles, who was fired after he clashed with Kennedy on a full-scale invasion of Cuba. Another was Congressman Gerald Ford (MUST SEE photorama local copy), a close buddy of Nixon with far-right connections, with both linked to the CIA.) Chief Exec VP and Gen Counsel was Associate Deputy Attorney General at the US Dept of Justice, and formerly law clerk for Scalia. CNN is interwoven with the government and the most secretive of intelligence agencies, CIA's cousin NSA ("no such agency", National Security Administration). Anderson Cooper, CIA Operative? His background is very similar to many CIA ops. CIA recruited him, but he 'declined' and went on to CNN. CBS/Viacom is run by Sumner M. Redstone, Harvard University School of Law in 1947, served in the Military Intelligence Division during World War II, and apparent ties to OSS/CIA figures. Prescott Bush also once held a controlling interest in CBS. CBS is pretty obviously CIA. ABC was bought by Capital Cities a firm created to acquire media, associated with CIA and run by former CIA director Wm. Casey. Cap Cities purchased ABC. Walt Disney was a former Nazi symp. Yes children, Mickey Mouse's daddy was a fascist. Disney merged with Capital Cities/ABC on July 31, 1995, with Disney in nominal control. ABC is CIA. PBS is a little more problematic to state clearly. Not directly Intelligence but it's former CEO Pat Mitchell is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (which is a privately-held business entity that acts like a staffing house for all three branches of govt and intelligence, as well as media), she was on the White House Project Advisory Board under Clinton, and a special correspondent, past president of CNN Productions and Time, Inc., exec for Ted Turner, worked for ABC, CBS, NBC, all the major media, was on the boards of Bank of America (tied to BCCI scandal, Pakistani BCCI was set to illegally purchase Bank of America), and Sun Microsystems (supplier to CIA, NSA, DoD). She resigned in March 2006 and was replaced by the current CEO, Paula Kerger. Al Jazeera: The Rupert Murdoch Fox News Of The Middle East? It is probably no coincidence that a useless video of old Osama bin Laden reruns mysteriously appeared on Al Jazeera ... my basic perception of Al Jazeera as yet another right wing mega media corporation controlled by the opinions and interests of international right wing rulling elite as well as the Emir of Qatar with his ties to the Bush Regime remains. (HO!!! The Emir of Qatar also gladly hosted Osama when he "fled" from Sudan to Afghanistan on a C-130 with a huge entourage of friends.) Fox -- no need to say -- "After this embarrassment (public exposure of the CIA and Right Wing media control), it was necessary for the Right to use its own private network to replace Operation Mockingbird. As a result, there is now the Cato Institute, with Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch (Fox, NY Post, TV Guide) on the Board with ATT/TCI's Malone. Fox may not be CIA directly, but close enough. Fox emerged from multi-millionaire right wing Foundation Grants and "investments". Fox was thereby guaranteed to succeed, could not fail, regardless of circumstances, and was able to hire the best PR specialists to meet these goals and take on the role of an authorative source." http://www.takeoverworld.info/media.html
