The support censorship and oppose free speech . Margarette Brennan on 'Face the Nation ' made that abundantly clear. She thinks free speech is a NAZI tactic .

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about what happened in Munich, Germany, at the Security Conference. Vice President Vance gave a speech, and he told U.S. allies that the threat he worries about the most is not Russia, it is not China. He called it the "threat from within," and he lectured about what he described as censorship, mainly focusing, though, on including more views from the right. He also met with the leader of a far-right party known as the AfD, which, as you know, is under investigation and monitoring by German intelligence because of extremism. What did all of this accomplish, other than irritating our allies?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion? We are, after all, democracies. The Munich- Munich Security Conference is largely a conference of democracies in which one of the things that we cherish and value is the ability to speak freely and provide your opinions. And so, I think if anyone's angry about his words, they don't have to agree with him, but to be angry about it, I think actually makes his point. I thought it was actually a pretty historic speech, whether you agree with him or not. I think the valid points he's making to Europe is, we are concerned that the true values that we share, the values that bind us together with Europe, are things like free speech and democracy and our shared history in winning two world wars and defeating Soviet communism and the like. These are the values that we shared in common, and in that cold war we fought against things like censorship and oppression and so forth, and when you see backsliding, and you raise that, that's a very valid concern. We can't tell them how to run their countries. We are- he simply expressed in a speech his view of it, which a lot of people, frankly, share. And I thought he said a lot of things in that speech that needed to be said. And honestly, I don't know why anybody would be upset about it. People are- you know, you don't have to agree on someone's speech. I happen to agree with a lot of what he said, but you don't have to agree with someone's speech to- to at least appreciate the fact they have a right to say it and that you should listen to it and see whether those criticisms are valid. I assure you, the United States has come under withering criticism on many occasions from many leaders in Europe, and we don't go around throwing temper tantrums about it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that. That the censorship was specifically about the right--

SECRETARY RUBIO: -- Well I have to disagree with you. No- I have- I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they- they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany, they were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that's not an accurate reflection of history. I also think it's wrong- again, I go back to the point of his speech. The point of his speech was basically that there is an erosion in free speech and intolerance or opposing points of view within Europe, and that's of concern because that is eroding. That's not an erosion of your military capabilities, that's not an erosion of your economic standing, that's an erosion of the actual values that bind us together in this transatlantic union that everybody talks about, and I think allies and friends and partners that have worked together now for 80 years, should be able to speak frankly to one another in open forums without being offended, insulted, or upset. And I spoke to Foreign Ministers from multiple countries throughout Europe. Many of them probably didn't like the speech or didn't agree with it, but they were continuing to engage with us on all sorts of issues that unite us. So again, at the end of the day, I think that, you know, people give all- that is a forum in which you're supposed to be inviting people to give speeches, not basically a chorus where everyone is saying the exact same thing. That's not always going to be the case when it's a collection of democracies where leaders have the right and the privilege to speak their minds in forums such as these.

Full transcript of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," Feb. 16, 2025 - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-full-transcript-02-16-2025/)

Marco Rubio slams CBS journalist for suggesting free speech caused the Holocaust (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0TaN2brgyE)

Free speech caused the Holocaust ????????


On '60 Minutes ' A German panel explained that they have free speech........until the government doesn't like what you say. Then they raid your home

It's 6:01 on a Tuesday morning, and we were with state police as they raided this apartment in northwest Germany. Inside, six armed officers searched a suspect's home, then seized his laptop and cellphone. Prosecutors say those electronics may have been used to commit a crime. The crime? Posting a racist cartoon online. At the exact same time, across Germany, more than 50 similar raids played out. Part of what prosecutors say is a coordinated effort to curb online hate speech in Germany.
Sharyn Alfonsi: What's the typical reaction when the police show up at somebody's door and they say, "Hey, we believe you wrote this on the internet,"?
Dr. Matthäus Fink: They say-- in Germany we say, "Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen." So we are here with crimes of talking, posting on internet, and the people are surprised that this is really illegal to post these kind of words.
Sharyn Alfonsi: They don't think it was illegal?

Dr. Matthäus Fink: No. They don't think it was illegal. And they say, "No, that's my free speech." And we say, "No, you have free speech as well, but it is also has its limits."


Interpreting those limits is part of the job for Dr. Matthäus Fink, Svenja Meininghaus and Frank-Michael Laue: a few of the state prosecutors tasked with policing Germany's robust hate speech laws, online. After its darkest chapter, Germany strengthened its speech laws. As prosecutors explain it, the German constitution protects free speech but not hate speech. And here's where it gets tricky, German law prohibits any speech that could incite hatred or is deemed insulting.
Sharyn Alfonsi: It's illegal to display Nazi symbolism, a Swastika or deny the Holocaust. That's clear. Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?
Svenja Meininghaus: Yes.

But it is not just saying or displaying NAZI symbols and salutes .
These politicians that decide when you go too far can call insulting them a hate crime too.


Frank-Michael Laue: Yes, it is.
Sharyn Alfonsi: And it's a crime to insult them online as well?
Svenja Meininghaus: Yes.
Dr. Matthäus Fink: The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet.
Sharyn Alfonsi: Why?
Dr. Matthäus Fink: Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face to face, you insult me, I insult you, okay. Finish. But if you're in the internet, if I insult you or a politician


Posting hateful speech online could lead to police raiding your home in this European country - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/policing-speech-online-germany-60-minutes-transcript/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7d&linkId=749014703)


That is the world they want to import into the US












If you've ever dared to read the comments on a social media post, you might start to wonder if civilized discourse is just a myth. Aggressive threats, lies, and harassment have unfortunately become the norm online, where anonymity has emboldened some users to push the limits of civility. In the United States, most of what anyone says, sends, or streams online — even if it's hate-filled or toxic — is protected by the First Amendment as free speech. But Germany is trying to bring some civility to the world wide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine. In an effort, it says, to protect discourse, German authorities have started prosecuting online trolls. And as we saw, it often begins with a pre-dawn wake-up call from the police.
It's 6:01 on a Tuesday morning, and we were with state police as they raided this apartment in northwest Germany. Inside, six armed officers searched a suspect's home, then seized his laptop and cellphone. Prosecutors say those electronics may have been used to commit a crime. The crime? Posting a racist cartoon online. At the exact same time, across Germany, more than 50 similar raids played out. Part of what prosecutors say is a coordinated effort to curb online hate speech in Germany.
Sharyn Alfonsi: What's the typical reaction when the police show up at somebody's door and they say, "Hey, we believe you wrote this on the internet,"?
Dr. Matthäus Fink: They say-- in Germany we say, "Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen." So we are here with crimes of talking, posting on internet, and the people are surprised that this is really illegal to post these kind of words.
Sharyn Alfonsi: They don't think it was illegal?

BTW the speech Vance gave in Germany was bad a$$ given that he was essentially breaking their law by saying it .


But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.
Now the good news is that I happen to think your democracies are substantially less brittle than many people apparently fear, and I really do believe that allowing our citizens to speak their mind will make them stronger still. Which of course brings us back to Munich, where the organizers of this very conference have banned lawmakers representing parties on both the left and the right from participating in these conversations.

Now again, we don’t have to agree with everything or anything that people say, but when people represent, when political leaders represent an important constituency, it is incumbent upon us to at least participate in dialogue with them.

Now to many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old entrenched interests hiding behind ugly Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation who simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion or, God forbid, vote a different way or even worse, win an election.

FULL TRANSCRIPT: VP JD Vance Remarks at the Munich Security Conference – The Singju Post (https://singjupost.com/full-transcript-vp-jd-vance-remarks-at-the-munich-security-conference/?singlepage=1)


A German politician can be fined and jailed for saying this
“Everything for our homeland, everything for Saxony-Anhalt, everything for Germany.”
German court fines senior AfD politician €13,000 for using banned Nazi phrase | The far right | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/german-court-fines-afd-bjorn-hocke-using-banned-nazi-phrase)

As has well been said, the solution for bad speech is more speech. An honest, professional free press is also important. Sadly, we don't have that and neither do they,

While the collective censor industrial complex was having apoplectic fits over Vance calling out censorship and making the absurd case that free speech is a Nazi tool ; they went out of their way to make Vance's point .

Headline the Compost

UK Orders Apple to let it spy on users' encrypted accounts .

U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/02/07/apple-encryption-backdoor-uk/)

(maybe the new marching orders at the compost is to do some good old fashion journalism.)

They demanded that Apple create a back door for them ;and Apple complied .

Apple drops encryption feature for UK users after government reportedly demanded backdoor access | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/apple-iphone-encryption-britain-cybersecurity-c5c37e99b3b9161dbed24231fbd94746)

In a bipartisan move ;Oregon’s Dem Senator Ron Wyden teamed up with Arizona Repub Rep Andy Biggs to ask Tulsi Gabbard to act against this .


You stated at your confirmation hearing that “backdoors lead down a dangerous path that can undermine Americans' Fourth Amendment rights and civil liberties.” And you wrote in response to a written question that “[m]andating mechanisms to bypass encryption or privacy technologies undermines user security, privacy, and trust and poses significant risks of exploitation by malicious actors.” We urge you to put those words into action by giving the U.K. an ultimatum: back down from this dangerous attack on U.S. cybersecurity, or face serious consequences.
Wyden Biggs Letter to DNI re-UK Backdoors (https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden-biggs-letter-to-dni-re-uk-backdoors.pdf)

How vast is the power of the state to snoop in England ?
The 'Investigatory Powers Act ' allows them to use hacking techniques ( “equipment interference”) and to employ “bulk” searches using “general” warrants" rather than specific warrants . This will allow the Brits to not only spy on every Apple user in their nation ;but to also collect data on anyone in the world that an Apple user in Great Britain contacts .
newbook.book (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/pdfs/ukpga_20160025_en.pdf)

That means that anyone in the 5 Eyes intelligence alliance (US UK Canada Australia New Zealand )has access to the Brit intel

2 days after the Brit Law passed ;the FBI got their marching order.



Changes to Rule 41 of the federal rules of criminal procedure come into force today, giving the FBI (with a judicially granted search warrant) authority to hack computers in any jurisdiction, and potentially overseas. This happened just two days after the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) was granted royal assent and became law. The latter gives Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) the legal authority to ‘mass hack’ outside of the UK.



FBI, GCHQ Get Foreign Hacking Authority - SecurityWeek (https://www.securityweek.com/fbi-gchq-get-foreign-hacking-authority/)

The fight against censorship in the US is far from over . Every election cycle result could make it a permanent tool of the state .

Is your post against censorship, or is it more against unwarranted invasions of privacy by the government?

In the digital age they are inseparable .

Mass surveillance invades our private thoughts and lives, chilling speech and spreading fear and mistrust throughout a society. Mass surveillance is censorship:

Mass Surveillance is Censorship - PEN America (https://pen.org/take-action/mass-surveillance-is-censorship/)

Tulsi Gabbard is taking action She wrote a letter to Senators Ron Wyden and Rep Andy Biggs where she was informer what the UK planned


. I am aware of the press reporting that the UK Home Secretary served Apple with a secret order directing the company to create a “back door” capability in its iCloud encryption to facilitate UK government access to any Apple iCloud users’ uploaded data anywhere in the world. I share your grave concern about the serious implications of the United Kingdom, or any foreign country, requiring Apple or any company to create a “backdoor” that would allow access to Americans personal encrypted data. This would be a clear and egregious violation of Americans’ privacy and civil liberties, and open up a serious vulnerability for cyber exploitation by adversarial actors........


Any information sharing between a government—any government—and private companies must be done in a manner that respects and protects the U.S. law and the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. I look forward to ensuring the UK government has taken necessary actions to protect the privacy of American citizens, consistent with the CLOUD Act and other applicable laws, irrespective of any press reporting. Our intelligence relationships with foreign partners are of vital importance to our national security, however, my obligations as Director of National Intelligence include protecting both the security of our country and the God-given rights of the American people enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

DNI-Wyden-Biggs-Response-1.pdf (https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/DNI-Wyden-Biggs-Response-1.pdf)

In that case, she is off to a good start.

Jeff Bezos owner of the Washington Compost has announced a major change for the paper . Personal liberty and free markets are now the marching orders for the editorial board .


“I am of America and for America, and proud to be so,” Mr. Bezos said. “Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical; it drives creativity, invention and prosperity.”

Jeff Bezos’ Directive for Washington Post Opinion Pages Leads to Editor David Shipley’s Exit - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/26/business/media/washington-post-bezos-shipley.html)

My take ; the Compost is bleeding by losing subscriptions while it was part of the compliant press serving the deep state It was complicit and a card carrying member of the censorship industrial complex.

Bezos and Elon Musk have been rivals for 2 decades . They competed in space Musk is winning Bezos specifically purchased the Compost to compete against Musk's X .Bezos saw his rival eating his lunch . He also never expected Trump to win. Out of necessity he has pivoted. Now the biggest issue in their feud is who loves Trump more.

It's interesting to see how many dominos have fallen after Trump's win. Let's just hope he doesn't go too far and blow the whole thing.

Bezos letter to the Compost staff

"I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages. We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.

There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.

I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.

I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away.

This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision. We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction.

I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void."

(found on X)

David Shipley resigned and much of the editorial board have made their opinions known . It is all on social media . Most of it is claptrap about independent journalistic integrity yada yada. Opinion is opinion and Bezos as the boss has the right and power to direct it.

Note that none of these clowns were worried about integrity when lying about Russian collusion; Hunter's laptop ;the Biden crime family , and the cover up of Clueless Joe's cognitive decline .So spare us the sanctimony.

Bezos' flag waving may be genuine . Or he could be looking at future business opportunity. The conservative standard bearers are the Wall Street Journal opinion page (their news page is more liberal) ;and Fox. Both are owned by Rupert Murdoch.


But the future of these are in the hands of his heirs; and there is a succession drama unfolding.

Eldest son Lachlan Murdoch wants to preserve the conservative lean . Rupert wants him to be the sole heir of the Murdoch media empire .

The rest of his kids are more traditions NYC libs. Depending on the outcome the opinions at their media companies could fundamentally change.
(read the gossip here )
Inside the latest Murdoch money battle tearing the family apart | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rupert-murdoch-children-family-money-b2614204.html)


That would leave an opening for Bezos to fill.

Now to many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old entrenched interests hiding behind ugly Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation who simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion or, God forbid, vote a different way or even worse, win an election.

(Vance speech in Germany)
“If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you.”
Remarks by Vice President Vance at the Munich Security Conference – The White House (https://www.whitehouse.gov/remarks/2025/02/remarks-by-vice-president-vance-at-the-munich-security-conference/)

Well the German entrenched centrists won the election . Let the speech crack down begin.
Here is the proposed Ministry of Truth by the German coalition . (translated )




Targeted influence on elections and by now commonplace disinformation and fake news are serious threats to our democracy, its institutions and social cohesion. The deliberate dissemination of false factual claims is not covered by freedom of expression. That is why the media supervisory authority, which is independent of the state, must be able to take action against the manipulation of information, hate-mongering and agitation while safeguarding freedom of expression—on the basis of clear legal requirements … We will ensure that online platforms fulfil their obligations with regard to transparency and cooperation with the supervisory authority
German ‘Ministry of Truth’ to Guard ‘Free Opinion’ ━ The European Conservative (https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/germany-speech-control-entity-repression-opinion-cdu-spd/)