He alleged European Union “commissars” were suppressing free speech.
One of his absurd gripes was a two hundred metre exclusion zone around abortion clinics. It seems that his idea of free speech is that people should be free to harass people going to an abortion centre. This harassment includes silent prayer. Is that really Free Speech? To allow a bunch of religious nutcases to congregate around the entrance to abortion clinics to harass young girls seeking advice or terminations? A large number of people, even indulging in silent prayer, is highly intimidating to young girls in highly emotional state. I don’t see this as a free speech issue. The girls have rights too! The right to not be harassed has nothing to do with free speech.
This seems staggeringly hypocritical.
According to JD Vance and the Trumpian MAGA movement Free Speech means the removal of all Fact Checking on social platforms. This means that conspiracy theories, propaganda and deliberate misinformation can be freely disseminated without any attempt to pull someone up for deliberately lying. Nobody is to be held to account. Is this Free Speech? (Of course, lies and conspiracy have been the vehicles through which Trump has deliberately stirred up fear and hate. It’s his currency. MAGA thrives on lies.) Their idea of Free Speech is the right to deliberately spread disinformation!
According to JD Vance and the Trumpian MAGA Movement it is OK to check phones at borders and refuse entry to anyone with views they disagree with. That’s not a suppression of Free Speech.
According to JD Vance and the Trumpian MAGA Movement it is OK to arrest people who oppose their views. This is not a suppression of Free Speech.
In The MAGA world suppression of alternative views is not about free speech at all. In the MAGA World you are entitled to believe what you like as long as it is not critical of them!
Free speech! As long as you conform!
Shut up ass hole.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/israeli-strikes-kill-dozens-in-gaza-newborn-and-toddler-among-dead/ar-AA1Fd1ZC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6f5134e902e1447ca66222a8d5d776f9&ei=44
The MSN headline and language you’ve cited are emotionally loaded and framed to evoke indignation, particularly against Israel. “Israeli strikes kill dozens in Gaza; newborn and toddler among dead.”
Emotive focus: The phrase “newborn and toddler among dead” is front-loaded to provoke emotional outrage. By highlighting innocent victims (especially babies), the headline implicitly casts Israel as a moral aggressor. No mention in the headline of Hamas, ongoing hostilities, or Israeli military objectives.
“Children were seen gathering around the rubble of flattened homes, with personal belongings like food and a wheelchair scattered in the debris.” Describing scattered belongings (e.g., a wheelchair) is meant to humanize the victims and dramatize the scene. There’s no reference to whether the site housed militants, weapons, or tunnels, which is often key in urban warfare involving Hamas.
“Despite growing international criticism, Israel pressed ahead with its military campaign, saying it was targeting Hamas command centres.” “Despite” implies defiance — suggesting Israel is ignoring world opinion, reinforcing a “rogue actor” narrative. “Saying it was targeting Hamas” distances the journalist from the claim, implying skepticism or disbelief.
Contrast With Typical Coverage of Hamas Attacks: When Hamas rockets strike Israeli civilians. Headlines often read: “Rocket fire hits Israeli city; no casualties reported.” Perpetrators are often generalized: “Militants”, not “Hamas”. Israeli deaths, when reported, are framed with passive voice or as unfortunate events, not moral outrages.
This style of reporting is not neutral journalism — it’s narrative journalism, shaped to direct public emotion. It may not lie, but it omits vital context. Such as: The use of civilian infrastructure by Hamas for military operations. The IDF’s efforts to warn civilians (e.g., leaflets, phone calls, roof-knocking). The deliberate embedding of Hamas forces among noncombatants — a war crime.
It’s outrage against war crime atrocities!!
Fuck YOU vile polluted fat stupid SOB. You do not qualify not as Judge Not as Jury and NOT as prosecution.
They all need to be in court and be properly judged and sentenced. Trump is already found guilty of 34 offences – probably guilty of a few hundred! Should have been locked up decades ago. Not only a grotesque conman crook but probably a predatory paedophile friend of Diddy and Epstein.
Fuck you sorry sack of shit. Your opinion does not even make fertilizer. Donald Trump was indicted on 34 counts related to business fraud, but he had not been found guilty of those charges at that time. The phrase “probably guilty of a few hundred” is speculative and not based on confirmed legal findings. Therefore, the statement is false in its implication that he has been found guilty of those offenses.