Fmr. CIA analyst on Elon restoring banned Twitter accounts: ”Putin is going to be all over Twitter if there’s no regulations on this, fake accounts, spoofed accounts … And so when he’s talking about the popular voice, Musk, he’s really talking about Russian intelligence.“ pic.twitter.com/2V546kBIZI
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 26, 2022
Bob Baer, cont’d: “It’s not right. And you know, this freedom of speech is just nonsense because you can’t go into a movie theater and yell ‘fire.’ It’s against the law. What Putin is going to do & the Russians is they’re going to use this as a vehicle to save himself in Ukraine” pic.twitter.com/3FnuOZDiSd
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 26, 2022
Robert Baer was talking about Elon Musk restoring the freedom of speech on Twitter, but he unwittingly enunciated the view of the Washington elites: the freedom of speech is just nonsense. Allowing dissidents from the dominant Left’s agenda to speak their views is tantamount to causing a panic that could get people killed. Thus the dissent must be forcibly suppressed. People such as Robert Baer know very well that the freedom of speech is a people’s primary defense against tyranny. That’s why they oppose it.
GreekEmpress says
Wait—what?
I thought Twitter was supposedly loaded with Russian disinformation/bots BEFORE Elon Musk bought it—
gravenimage says
+1
libertyORdeath says
Isn’t it funny how despite a Supreme Court ruling that “yelling fire in a crowded theater” is indeed Constitutionality protected speech, these authoritarians STILL insist that this one unique scenario is enough to justify ANY and ALL censorship that they desire?
Btw, anyone who calls our First Amendment right to free speech and expression “nonsense” should have NO PLACE in our government, let alone the CIA.
The only way to stop this is similar to many other issues we face – we must enforce the laws and rights that already exist.
If we enforced our border security laws, we wouldn’t have an illegal immigrant problem.
If we enforced our gun laws, we’d have much less of a gun problem.
If we followed the First Amendment, we’d have less problems with censorship.
Good to be back!
libertyORdeath says
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
Don McKellar says
This guy is missing half the picture and is half right. Yes, Russian disinformation is going to move in. The same people who spread so much disinformation and nonsense about the China virus and even how vaccines work, and created a sizeable population of anti-vax conspiracy theory nuts. However he fails to comprehend or doesn’t want to talk about the fact that Russian intelligence will be taking the place of Chinese intelligence on Twitter. Most of the bots being removed are China bots, and Twitter’s former regime were Democrats and collecting side income from China. So it’s really the replacement of one force for evil with another that’s happening.
david1508 says
Coming from a former employee of an organisation called the CIA that went rogue decades ago, way before the FBI went rogue.The CIA has killed & tortured many people, also involved in assassinations, drug runnings, foreign election interference & regime change…. and that’s just what we know about.
Any clueless people (like Piers Morgan who has CIA employees on his show) who want to read up on a sample of what the CIA get up to should read about MK Ultra, just to give you a taste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra
Westman says
CIA and FBI “secret speech” wasn’t very effective in preventing 9/11.
Let’s observe Germany’s idea of free speech:
“German Foreign Affairs Minister, Annalena Baerbock, said that her government would be willing to continue to subsidize and support the Ukrainian war effort for years, no matter whether the voters in Germany approve or not.”
“We stand with Ukraine as long as they need us,” the Green Party politician said, adding that this pledge comes, “no matter what my German voter thinks.”!!
It seems that Western Governments don’t want free speech – “No matter what the German, American, or French, etc, voter thinks.” This is the global elites thinking of the populace as minions. They didn’t learn anything from the unexpected election of Trump or the shining blade of the French Revolution.
Scott Ritter is one of the few who is speaking truth instead of propaganda about the Russia-Ukraine War. Ukraine is being shattered and millions of Ukranians will never return. Elon Musk made a suggestion of how the war could be ended and was soundly rebuffed by Ukraine, which is making every attempt to drag NATO into a direct war. The first attempt was recently made over missiles landing in Poland. Expect more.
According to Ritter, Putin will no longer consider negotiations and his intent has resolved to total defeat for Ukraine. We sadly recall how in WWII the distinction between soldier and citizen was lost. The Ukraine army will soon face 200,000+ new combatants in wintertime, in a failing infrastructure. Let’s hope rational heads prevail, very soon.
Putin doesn’t need Twitter to win on the battle field, free people need an open Twitter to survive our would-be masters who don’t know the limits of their arrogant wisdom.
gravenimage says
Westman, of course, this from the Green Party is disgusting.
But the unspoken implication here is that the majority of Germans want to abandon Ukraine (and Poland, and Moldova, and Georgia, and the Baltic States, and Finland et al) to Russia aggression. This is of course *not* the case:
“70% of Germans back Ukraine despite high energy prices, survey shows”
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/70-germans-back-ukraine-despite-high-energy-prices-poll-2022-07-15/
And not everyone agrees that the way to handle unprovoked aggression is to kowtow to it. Russia can withdraw from Ukraine at any time, so the only “negotiations” involve how much of their land you believe Ukraine should be forced to give up to appease Putin.
But this kind of appeasement just enables further demands. Remember, Russia has said that Ukraine does not exist, and Lavrov in his BBC interview said that a “Nazi” is any Ukrainian who supports an independent Ukraine, and that they have to be liquidated.
As for the story above, the way to respond to speech one disagrees with is to provide a rational counter argument. If you have a solid base for your stance, this is not difficult.
As a rule it is those with indefensible positions who try and crush freedom of speech.
libertyORdeath says
I don’t know if I’d call recognizing reality kowtowing to Russia. The US did in fact interfere in Ukrainian politics at the highest levels, even to the point of ousting a popularly elected president due to his supposed support for Russia.
This is a Russian civil war when it comes down to it. Supporting Ukraine means supporting the oppression of the Russian speaking citizens in Ukraine, supporting the destruction of all opposition parties, supporting censorship and perhaps worst of all – supporting Neo-nazis.
It’s best for Western Europe and America to stay out of civil wars. When’s the last time our intervention had a positive effect anyways?
Not in Afghanistan
Not in Iraq
Not in Ukraine
Not in Venezuela
Not in Vietnam
You’d have to go back to the Korean war, and even that ended in a stalemate.
Would we want Russia arming Mexican militias on our southern border? Probably not.
gravenimage says
Former CIA analyst on CNN: ‘This freedom of speech is just nonsense’
……………………………………
Just appalling. There was a time when I thought that the CIA was defending free speech and other hard fought American values.
jdow says
Speech MUST be free; but, “If you break it you pay for it.” That means you are responsible for what you say. The traditional expression of this is, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Modern society has divorced responsibility from every day life. It should be a must be restored. This will be VERY painful for many younger people. I feel sorry for their pain. But, it absolutely must be done before they find themselves with the “freedoms” China grants its victims.
{^_^}
gravenimage says
jdow, yelling fire in a crowded theater was *never* actually illegal, and the Supreme Court has long since formally affirmed this.
More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
jdow says
If you yell fire in a crowded theater and are not held responsible for the mess and injuries that creates something is deeply deeply wrong with the society we live in. If you point a gun at somebody that is legal within Constitutional limits. It is, in fact, protected behavior by 1A and 2A. But, it you shoot that gun it might still fall within 1A and 2A territory, but you are still held accountable for the damage that occurs.
You cannot be held responsible for the act of yelling fire in a theater. You can be held responsible for the mess that yell creates. You should find it illegal to own and discharge a chemically powered paper punch. But if that paper punching projectile hits somebody you certainly are responsible for the damage.
I hope that distinction is cleared up for you.
{^_^}
libertyORdeath says
The “yelling fire” canard is just the refuge of authoritarians who don’t want to publicly call for censorship. Just like every other issue, the US already has robust laws governing illegal speech such as harassment or death threats. Adding to that by claiming the antiquated “yelling fire” excuse as a reason to censor Constitutionality protected speech is the dream of those who absolutely DESPISE our right to free expression.
Nobody else has the First or Second Amendments to protect them. As we can see in supposedly free countries in Western Europe, without a GUARANTEE of your right to free speech by enshrining it as a GOD GIVEN right that cannot be taken away by overzealous politicians, it can be easily taken away by claiming you are not entitled to “hate speech.” The trick is that “hate speech” is whatever they want it to be.
Never let ignorant reactionary emotion convince you that free speech isn’t important. None of us like EVERYTHING other people say, but their right to say it within legal limits sould be as important to you as protecting your own right.