Is freedom of speech under threat?
Freedom of expression is a universal human right. But it is increasingly under pressure, even in some of the oldest democracies. Why? The power of social media, more authoritarian leaders and the Covid-19 pandemic are just a few of the possible reasons.
In Switzerland, critics say a legal revision that makes it easier for judges to prevent the publication of media reports shows that freedom of expression is not totally guaranteed here. But we should not forget Russia, Belarus, Myanmar, Hong Kong or mainland China, where freedom of speech is also under threat. What is the situation like where you live?
From the article When white collar criminals try to silence the press
Join the conversation but remember to be respectful and to adhere to our Netiquette and guidelines about commenting.
I'm from Russia.
Freedom of speech in this country is fine.
Everyone says exactly what they think is right.
You can see such people on TV, in social networks, or even at rallies until the word became a swear word.
And then.
You can hear about these people again on TV, in social networks + on the radio and they are popular when discussing at work in the smoke breaks.
In general, "fame" rolls up like a snowball.
And the main story about them banal and diverse. As one, they all turned out to have committed crimes in the past, big or small or did not have time and wanted to, but ...
Somebody got poisoned on an airplane.
Somebody didn't make it on the plane.
Someone in a restaurant exploded.
Somebody suddenly decided to sell a business for 5% of its value.
Somebody just got lost.
Someone went to jail because they slandered a respected man out of the goodness of their heart.
What can you do?
It's no other way than that Themis itself has opened a branch in Moscow.
Я из России.
Со свободой слова в этой стране всё хорошо.
Каждый говорит ровным счётом то, что считает нужным.
Таких людей можно увидеть по телевизору, в социальных сетях или даже на митингах пока это слово не стало ругательным.
А потом...
Об этих людях можно опять услышать по телевизору, в социальных сетях + по радио и они популярны при обсуждении на работе в перекурах.
В общем "слава" накатывает как снежный ком.
И главное истории о них банальные и разнообразные. Как один все они оказывается преступления в прошлом совершали, большие или маленькие или вот не успели а хотели, но...
Кто-то в самолёте отравился.
Кто-то на самолёте не долетел.
Кто-то в ресторане взорвался.
Кто-то бизнес решил неожиданно продать за 5% от стоимости.
Кто-то просто потерялся.
Кто-то в тюрьму сел потому как оклеветал по простоте душевной человека уважаемого.
А что поделаешь?
Не иначе как сама Фемида филиал своей открыла в Москве.
I live in Kazakhstan, and although at first glance our freedom of speech is not bad, there is actually quite a lot of pressure on those publications that touch on the interests or personalities of officials at the level of city leaders and above.
The tools of influence are quite extensive - from constant numerous complaints about profiles and publications in social networks, to direct threats (hating) and statements to the police about libel.
In some cases, criminal liability is imposed for allegedly inciting discord or participating in and financing the activities of an unregistered public association.
For example, the prosecution requested 10 years of imprisonment for Marat Zhylanbaev, a world-famous marathon runner who has conquered seven of the largest deserts on the planet, on what I consider to be an absolutely wild charge.
It is practically impossible to register a party or an independent trade union or a public association at the republican level.
I will be glad to tell you about the peculiarities of life in Kazakhstan, if you are interested.
thank you for your attention
я живу в Казахстане, и хотя на первый взгляд со свободой слова у нас все не плохо, на самом деле есть довольно жесткий прессинг для тех публикаций, которые затрагивают интересы или личности чиновников уровня руководителей городов и выше.
инструменты воздействия весьма обширны – от постоянных многочисленных жалоб на профиль и публикации в соцсетях, до прямых угроз (хейтинга) и заявлений в полицию о клевете.
в некоторых случаях вменяют уголовную ответственность за якобы разжигание розни или участие и финансирование деятельности незарегистрированного общественного объединения.
так, 10 лет лишения свободы запросило обвинение для Марата Жыланбаева – всемирно известного марафонца, покорившего семь крупнейших пустынь планеты – по совершенно дикому на мой взгляд обвинению.
зарегистрировать партию или независимый профсоюз, или общественное объединение республиканского уровня практически невозможно.
буду рад рассказать об особенностях жизни в Казахстане, если у Вас возникнет интерес.
благодарю за внимание
I just wanted to express my total admiration for the Swiss model, which we might call "direct democracy".
Switzerland, a relatively small country in terms of area, has 27 cantons and 4 national languages, and it is clear that social coexistence is much more stable and balanced than in any other European country. We in Europe should follow this magnificent example of social balance, where the people can (do) take their country's politics into their own hands.
From the outset, I fully agree with the principle that only Swiss citizens can vote. This reflects the importance of national identity, its history and, above all, the stability that emanates from it. What should be seen as an example is sometimes criticized on the grounds that "everyone" should have the right to vote. That's not the case, in my opinion. Anyone who doesn't like it can always leave, choose another place to live, the Swiss rule in Switzerland and history has shown to the full how important this principle is.
Direct democracy, with the possibility of calling plebiscites and referendums, is also exemplary and, as far as I know, a unique system in the world. Especially in a country where four languages coexist in 27 cantons, and where there would be everything to create a huge mess. Not so, and that's a good thing. This is the example to follow, avoiding divisions and sectarianism that destroy the concept of democracy (where unfortunately the possibility of fraud is always present) and polarize society. Those who don't like it, as I say, just have to emigrate. I don't live in Switzerland, so there's no point in talking about my freedom of expression. Which is undoubtedly a supreme good, and I hope that Europe will begin to study the Swiss model more closely.
Eu queria somente expressar a minha total admiração pelo modelo suíço a que poderemos chamar "democracia directa".
Um país, Suíça, que sendo relativamente pequeno em termos de área, tem 27 cantões e 4 línguas nacionais, sendo evidente uma convivência social muito mais estável e equilibrada do que em qualquer outro país europeu. Na Europa deveríamos seguir este exemplo magnífico de equilíbrio social onde as pessoas podem ter (têm) nas mãos a condução da política do país.
Logo à partida estou totalmente de acordo com o princípio de que só os cidadãos suíços podem votar. Isto reflecte a importância da identidade nacional, da sua História e sobretudo da estabilidade que daí emana. O que deveria ser visto como um exemplo é por vezes criticado, com o suposto direito de que "todos" deveriam ter o direito de votar. Não é assim, em meu entender. Quem não gostar tem sempre a possibilidade de sair, escolher outro lugar para morar, na Suíça mandam os suíços e a história demonstra à saciedade quão importante é esse princípio.
Também a democracia directa, com a possibilidade de convocar plebiscitos e referendos, é exemplar, sendo, ao que sei, um sistema único no Mundo. Sobretudo num país onde convivem 4 línguas, em 27 cantões, e onde haveria tudo para criar uma enorme confusão. Não é assim, e ainda bem. Eis o exemplo a seguir, evitando clivagens e sectarismos que destroem o conceito de democracia (onde infelizmente está sempre presente a possibilidade de fraude) e polarizam a sociedade. Quem não gosta, como digo, só tem de emigrar. Não vivo na Suíça, portanto não faz sentido falar da minha liberdade de expressão. Que é sem dúvida um bem supremo, espero que na Europa se comece a estudar melhor o modelo suíço.
In my country we are submerged by fear. A global vision of participation is offered, but in reality only those who are part of one side of the status quo participate.
It is increasingly clear that the plurality of voices and freedom of expression is only a means of publicity managed from other levels.
We are puppets who only repeat what we are taught. It happened with the Second World War, and it is likely to happen again with the events taking place in the world today.
As has already been encouraged since the implementation of social networks and the pandemic, the over-information, the slowness of the laws to regulate social networks and the poor preparation of the population to better manage their information resources.
In today's world we are dispersed. Also thanks to technology we have some tools to multiply voices, but there is too much noise.
A philosopher who describes very well what we are living today is Byung Chul Han, who explains what is the result of a system that is leading us to mass suicide.
Today you are free to say whatever you want, but who really listens to you?
Are we destined to the horror experienced in the past because of the inaction of Capitalism and institutions? Or is the objective in question that of a world conflict?
En mi pais estamos sumidos por el miedo, Se ofrece una vision global de participacion, pero en realidad solo participa el que es parte de un lado del status quo.
Cada ves es mas claro que la pluralidad de voces y la libertad de expresarse es solo un medio de publicidad manejado desde otros niveles.
Somos marionetas que solo repetimos lo que nos inculcan. Paso con la segunda guerra mundial, y es probable que vuelva a pasar con los acontecimientos que suscitan en el mundo hoy.
como ya fue incentivado desde la implementacion de las redes sociales y la pandemia, la sobreinformacion, la lentitud de las leyes para regular las redes sociales y la poca preparacion de la poblacion para manejar mejor sus recursos informativos.
En el mundo actual estamos dispersos. Tambien gracias a la tecnologia tenemos algunas herramientas para multiplicar voces, pero hay demasiado ruido.
Un filosofo que describe muy bien lo que vivimos hoy es Byung chul han, que nos explica cual es el resultado de un sistema que nos esta llevando al suicidio en masa.
Hoy eres libre de decir lo que quieras, pero quien te escucha realmente?
Estamos destinados al horror vivido en el pasado por la inaccion del Capitalismo y las instituciones? O es el objetivo en cuestion el de un Conflicto mundial?
When a person lives in a non-democratic country, his freedom of expression is very limited, if we do not say none. In a non-democratic country, a citizen cannot criticize the policies of (the ruling authorities). If he does, he is doomed to imprisonment to silence his voice.
عندما يعيش الشخص في دولةٍ غير ديمقراطيّة، فإنّ حُريتَه في التعبير جدّ محدودة، إنْ لم نقُلْ مُنعَدِمة، في دولة غير ديمقراطيّة لا يُمكن للمواطن انتقاد سياسات (السلطات الحاكمة)، فإنْ فَعَل، فَمآلُه السِّجن لإسكات صوته.
I believe that freedom of thought and expression is the most important human right.
However, it is unforgivable to slander others or harm them by saying that it is freedom of expression.
No matter how much we say that we are only exercising our own human rights, it is not acceptable to ignore the human rights of others.
Freedom and regulation are both good in moderation.
思考、表現の自由は人権として最も重要なものだと思っています。
しかし、表現の自由だ、と言って他人を誹謗中傷したり、相手を傷つけるのは許し難い行為であります。
いくら自分が持つ人権を行使しているだけだと言っても他人の人権を無視して良い訳はありません。
自由も規制も程々が良いです。
Freedom of speech is to present my point of view on matters, but criticizing people is not freedom of speech, which requires evidence.
言論自由乃是對事務提出我的觀點，但對人的批評就不是言論自由，這是要有證據的
It is the nature of humans to think and express their opinions and philosophy on important issues for society. Yes, there is freedom of expression and there are laws to protect intellectual property and its freedom, but this does not give us the absolute freedom to attack the values or beliefs of others. What I have noticed in European thought is to attack the values and beliefs of Muslims and integrate them with freedom of opinion. This is a mistake. Religion remains a consistent belief of communities, whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, away from human philosophy because it relates to the sanctity of communities. The ideological field remains open to think and express opinion freely.
We hope that he respects religion and no one tries to express his opinion on it because it offends the feelings of believers as long as he has not seen that religion and does not believe in it.
Thank you
من طبيعة البشر ان يفكروا ويبدون بأرائهم وفلسفتهم تجاه قضاية مهمة للمجتمع ونعم ان تكون هناك حرية التعبير كما تكون هناك قوانين لحماية الملكية الفكرية وحريتها ، ولكن هذا لا يعطينا الحرية المطلقة بأن نعتدي على قيم او عقائد غيرنا ، وما لاحظته في الفكر الأوروبي هو الأعتداء على قيم ومعتقدات المسلمين ويدمجونها مع حرية الرأي وهذا خطأ ، فيبقى الدين معتقد ثابت للمجتمعات سواء كان مسيحي او يهودي او اسلامي بعيد عن الفلسفة البشرية لأنه يتعلق بقداسة المجتمعات ، ويبقى المجال الإيديولوجي مفتوح للتفكير وإبداء الرأي بكل حرية .
نحن نرجوا ان يحترم الدين ولا احد يحاول ان يبدي فيه رايه لأنه يسيئ لمشاعر المعتقدين طالما انه لم يطلع على ذاك الدين ولا يؤمن به .
وشكرا
If a group can decide what you can and cannot say because it feels attacked, then in my opinion that is the exact opposite of freedom of expression.
Wenn eine Gruppe bestimmen kann, was man sagen darf und was nicht, weil sie sich angegriffen fühlt, dann ist das meiner Ansicht nach das genaue Gegenteil von Meinungsfreiheit.
I believe that the path of direct democracy, adopted by the C.H., is the most correct way to obtain greater popular participation in all that respects public administration. On the contrary, in my country, Portugal, the politicians maintain that "representative democracy" (and they use their words) best represents the people. They only represent their lobbies. Total corruption.
Je pense que le chemin de la democracie directe, adoptée par la C.H. c'est la plus correcte façon de obtenir une plus grande participacion populaire a tout qui respecte a la admimistration publique. Au contraire a mon pais, Portugal, les politiciens soutiens que "la democracie representative" (et sons leurs mots) c'est la qui mieux represente le peuple. Ils represente que leurs lobbies. Une corrupcion totale.
The call for censorship in a debate called "Is freedom of expression in danger?
Simply brilliant
L'appel à la censure dans un débat qui s'appele "la liberté d'expression est-elle en danger"
Simplement génial
To what extent can freedom of expression be exercised? Should it be exercised without restrictions as a principle of democracy, as the French state says, or does it stop at the limits of non-abuse of religious beliefs, as seen by many Islamic institutions?
In fact, freedom of expression should be exercised without restrictions as a principle of democracy, but provided that there is objectivity, rationality and the right of expression, meaning that the expression must first be eligible for expression. The limits of non-abuse of God (not religions, prophets or religious guardians), homelands, and human dignity should be respected. Corrupt institutions, whether royal, religious, military or party, are the purpose and subject of expression. It may be worth thanks and may be worth insulting. Without rational, objective and unilateral freedom of expression, there is no life. The best testimony is to die for. Man is the expression and the telling of the truth and rejection Talam and tyrant, which the Lord of the Worlds has forbidden to himself, with all his power,
إلى أي مدى يمكن ممارسة حرية التعبير؟ وهل يجب أن تُمارس بلا قيود كمبدأ للديمقراطية، كما تقول الدولة الفرنسية، أم أنها تقف عند حدود عدم الإساءة إلى المعتقدات الدينية، كما ترى العديد من المؤسسات الإسلامية؟
فعلا ينبغي ممارسة حرية التعبير بلا قيود كمبدأ للديمقراطية، لكن شريطة توفر موضوعية و عقلانية و أحقية التعبير، بمعنى ينبغي للمعبر ان يكون اولا مؤهلا للتعبير، كما ينبغي احترام حدود عدم الاساءة الى الله ( و ليس الاديان او الانبياء او حراس الاديان) و الى الاوطان ،و الى الكرامة الادمية، اما المؤسسات الفاسدة ،سواءا كانت ملكية او دينية او عسكرية او حزبية ،فهي المقصودة و هي موضوع التعبير،،قد تستحق الشكر و قد تستحق القدف و السب ،,و بدون وجود حرية التعبير العقلاني و الموضوعي و اللاحدودي لا وجود للحياة ,, ان افضل شهادة يموت من اجلها الانسان هي التعبير و قول الحقيقة و رفض الطلم و الطغايان،الذي حرمها رب العالمين على نفسه،بكل ما يمتلك من قوة ,,
(Not religions, prophets or religious guardians) This is from your comment
Religion is the belief of a society and a belief should be respected even if you do not believe in it. If you abuse the prophets, you attack the belief of a society and this does not give you the absolute freedom to abuse a society and call it freedom of opinion or to make yourself known at the expense of a belief because you know that you will irritate a society. Here, you have to set limits to your freedom because overcoming them will harm communities. It remains for you to express your opinion on an ideology, policy, or regular or international institutions. That is your expression and you are free to do so.
( و ليس الاديان او الانبياء او حراس الاديان) هذا من تعليقك
فالدين معتقد لمجتمع ما والمعتقد يجب احترامه حتى وان لم تؤمن به ، فإذا قمت بالإساءة للأنبياء فانت تهاجم معتقد مجتمع وهذا لا يعطيك الحرية المطلقة لكي تسيئ لمجتمع وتسميها حرية الرأي او لكي تشهر نفسك على حساب معتقد ما لأنك تعلم انك ستثير حفيظة مجتمع ما . هنا عليك ان تضع حدود لحريتك لأنك بتخطيها ستسيئ للمجتمعات ، ويبقى لك ان تبدي رايك في ايديولوجيا او سياسة ما او مؤسسات نظامية او دولية فذاك تعبيرك وانت حر فيه
Other former EU do not share your views at all and they consider the Parliament as largely corrupt. As a European citizen, I am shocked by the use of censorship that you recommend as soon as someons has diverging views. May I remind you that freedom of speech is not a privilege for high level bureaucrats but the very foundation of democracy.
It is highly unlikely that in Russia you can read European newspapers. Russia is a source of extensive disinformation. East Stratcom Task force was set up to tracl the falsr information coming out of Russia. the task force collected over 700 cases of disinformation about COVID-19. Here is one: Sputnik claimed that the COVID virus was a product of NATO laboratories.
The Special Report " Pillars of Russia`s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem" August 2020 described Russia`s Proxy sites that put out disinformation: The Strategic Culture Foundation directed by its Foreign Intelligence Service publishes and West and anti US conspiracy theories; Global resaerch website, SouthFront, Katehon, Geopolitica.ru, ANNA (Analytical Network News Agency) falsely claimed that Ukraine leaked radioactive iodine-131. aNNA worked for NewsFront and Southfron websites. New Eastern Outlook website published an article conspiring that the COVID virus was made in ciowarfare in the Pentagon and the virus was specificall directed at the chinese race meaning it targeted chinese DNA and only chinese would be infected.
Here's the East StratCom Task Force's website, where you can find some information about how the task force works: [url]https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/questions-and-answers-about-east-stratcom-task-force_en[/url]. It also runs a database of news articles published by Russian media that, according to the task force, contain disinformation: [url]https://euvsdisinfo.eu/disinformation-cases/[/url]
Since the start of the terrorist attacks against Burkina Faso in 2016, the scope of freedom of expression has only narrowed.
Indeed, the war on terrorism has 3 major consequences: 1) it has provoked massive population displacements (2,000,000 internally displaced people and over 30,000 refugees in neighboring countries); 2) it has created an unprecedented humanitarian crisis for the country; 3) it has provoked political and institutional stability and led to a succession of coups d' états (2 military coups in less than a year).
In this crisis situation, the successive powers are trying to control all information, especially the media. Not only have media outlets, particularly foreign ones, been suspended, but people who have openly criticized the government's counter-terrorism strategy have been arrested and some forcibly conscripted into units fighting in the field. As for journalists, 22 of them have received death threats from supporters of the ruling Captains.
Depuis le début des attaques terroristes contre le Burkina Faso en 2016, le champ de la liberté d'expression ne fait que se réduire.
En effet, la guerre contre le terrorisme a 3 conséquences majeures: 1) elle a provoqué des déplacements massifs de population (2 000 000 de personnes déplacées internes et plus de 30 000 refugiés dans les pays voisins); 2) elle a créé une crise humanitaire sans précédent pour le pays; 3) elle a provoqué une instabilité politique et institutionnelle et conduit à une succession de coup-d' états ( 2 coup-d' états militaires en moins d'une année).
Dans cette situation de crise, les pouvoirs successifs essaient de contrôler toutes les informations et notamment les médias. Non seulement des médias, notamment étrangers, ont été suspendus, mais des personnes qui ont critiqué ouvertement la stratégie gouvernementale de lutte contre le terrorisme ont été arrêtées et certaines enrôlées de force dans les unités qui combattent sur le terrain. quant aux journalistes, 22 d'entre eux ont reçu des menaces de mort de la part des partisans des Capitaines au pouvoir.
It seems to me that we need to differentiate between freedom of "opinion" and freedom of "expression". Social networks seem to have advanced freedom of opinion to the detriment of freedom of expression. An opinion is generally an unfounded opinion about a person, a group, a way of doing things, etc. This opinion is shared by a large number of people. This opinion is shared by a large number of people through a domino effect. But these opinions have little value, and more often than not, the people who give them don't develop any arguments in support of their opinion. Freedom of expression, on the other hand, covers a much wider field. It concerns politics first and foremost, and to be exercised it requires argumentation, elements that establish the validity of this expression. In my opinion, this is what we need to focus on, if we want to put political debate, which is essential to democracy, back at the heart of society.
Il me semble qu’il y a lieu de différencier la liberté d’ « opinion » de la liberté « d’expression ». Les réseaux sociaux semblent avoir fait progresser la liberté d’opinion au détriment de la liberté d’expression. Une opinion, c’est en général un avis peu fondé sur une personne, un groupe, un mode de faire, etc. Cet avis est partagé avec un grand nombre de personnes par un phénomène d’entraînement. Mais ces avis n’ont pas grande valeur, et le plus souvent les personnes qui les donnent ne développent aucune argumentation à l’appui de leur avis. La liberté d’expression, elle, concerne un champ beaucoup plus vaste. Elle concerne la politique en premier lieu, et pour s’exercer elle nécessite une argumentation, des éléments qui établissent le bien fondé de cette expression. C’est cela qu’il faut, à mon sens, privilégier, si on veut remettre le débat politique, nécessaire à la démocratie, au centre de la société.
An opinion, if based on good research would be founded on evidence.
Freedom of expression is just that: You have the freedom to express yourself.
They are two different things
RE: Quote "In principle everything should be crystal clear. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 and the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from 1966 include the same phrase (Article 19): “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”
But not in Switzerland.
In Switzerland democracy ends with the ballot box.
Corporations are autocratic.
A very topical issue that needs to be reflected upon. Freedoms of expression are being curtailed, more or less rapidly. In the name of a "necessary" content regulation, a group ignored by us, defines what can and should be said.
Brazil is a typical example of media control, not just social media. Where a Supreme Court, of "justice", aligned with the leftist government, silences, prohibits and demonetizes independent media and sends to prison in many cases people opposed to the regime that is installed. This phenomenon is being observed in other parts of the world. It jeopardizes freedoms and every democratic ideal. A true doctrinal manipulation of information and free access to the truth.
Um tema muito atual com necessaria reflexão. As liberdades de expressão estão sendo tolhidas, em maior ou menor velocidade. Em nome de uma "necessária"regulação de conteúdos, um grupo ignorado por nós, define oque se pode e o que se deve falar.
O Brasil, é um exemplo típico de controle de mídias, não apenas mídias sociais. Cujo parâmetro de censura é apenas político partidário.Onde uma Suprema Corte, de "justiça", alinhada com o governo de esquerda, cala, proíbe e desmonetiza mídias independentes e manda prender em muitos casos pessoas opositoras ao regime que se instala. Este fenômeno est´[a semdo observado em outras partes do mundo. Colocando em risco as liberdades e todo ideal democrático. Uma verdadeira manipulação doutrinária da informação e do acesso livre a verdade.
There are some groups of people wanting to force the majority to think like them and trying to prevent us from having any opinion on any topic that might "hurt" their susceptibilities. These are called Woke Movements.
One has to be very careful and attentive to this kind of sensitive groups, who want to stop the freedom of others to have their own / opposite opinion.
Há alguns grupos de pessoas a quererem obrigar que a maioria pense como eles e a tentar impedir que tenhamos qualquer opinião sobre qualquer tema que possa “ferir” as suas suscetibilidades. Os chamados Movimentos Woke.
Há que ter muita atenção e cuidado relativamente a este tipo de grupos sensíveis, que querem acabar com a liberdade dos outros terem uma opinião própria / contrária à deles.
The other thing is: To start talking about freedom of speech because Europe cannot see Russian media? Neither print media nor radio nor TV, In Russia you see everything from the West, So what are such Western democracies about?
Lo otro es: Para comenzar a hablar de libertad de expresión porque Europa no puede ver los medios rusos? Ni prensa escrita ni radio ni TV, En Rusia se ve todo lo de Occidente, ¿Entonces en qué consisten las tales democracias occidentales?
We start off badly when they use as an example countries like Russia, China, etc. Why do they never use as an example NATO countries or Arab countries? They always take a stereotype to manipulate ideologically the population of the West, why don't they talk about freedom of expression in Ukraine which is 100% affected and which submits its population to a total ostracism? Why in Spain the opposition is subjected to bullying and threats from a corrupt judicial system aligned to the Spanish right? These are just a few examples, but in order to have a serious debate we must first recognize that freedom of expression in their environment.
Comenzamos mal cuando ponen de ejemplo a países como Rusia, China, etc. ¿Porque nunca ponen de ejemplo a los países de la OTAN o países Arabes? Siempre se lleva un estereotipo para manipular ideológicamente a la población de occidente, ¿Porque no hablan de la libertad de expresión en Ucrania que está afectada al 100% y que somete a su población a un ostracismo total? Porque en España la oposición se ve sometida al bullying y a las amenazas de un sistema judicial corrupto y alineado a la derecha española? Estos son solo algunos ejemplos, pero para poder realizar un debate serio debemos primero reconocer esa libertad de expresión en su entorno.
Join the conversation!