A Quote by Laura Loomer

Censorship is un-American, and it's egregious that any journalist would advocate for others to be banned for political speech. — © Laura Loomer
Censorship is un-American, and it's egregious that any journalist would advocate for others to be banned for political speech.
The solution to voters potentially being misled by a judicial candidate's political speech is more speech - not government censorship.
Any country that has sexual censorship will eventually have political censorship.
My life has become extremely hard. I am banned on Twitter. I'm banned on Uber. I'm banned on Lyft. I'm banned on Venmo. I'm banned on GoFundMe. I'm banned on PayPal. I'm banned on Uber Eats. I can't even order a sandwich.
Overall there may be less censorship in America than in China, but censorship and self-censorship are not only from political pressure, but also pressures from other places in a society.
You can't trust politicians. It doesn't matter who makes a political speech. It's all lies - and it applies to any rock star who wants to make a political speech as well.
As in Pakistan, Tunisian and Egyptian human rights activists are concerned that any censorship mechanisms, once put in place, will inevitably be abused for political purposes no matter what censorship proponents claim to the contrary.
"I wouldn't be in your position" - old saw. If there is any political move that I would advocate it would be an alliance between America and Red China, if they'd have us.
Chinese central government doesn't need to even lead public opinion: it just selectively stops censorship. In other words, just as censorship is a political tool, so is the absence of censorship.
One of the curious things about censorship is that no one seems to believe in it for himself. We want censorship to protect someone else— the young, the unstable, the suggestible, the stupid. I have never heard of anyone who wanted a film or speaker banned because otherwise he himself might be harmed.
Assange is not a 'journalist' any more than the 'editor' of al-Qaeda's new English-language magazine 'Inspire' is a 'journalist.' He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands.
And of course, Indonesian people are above all scared of being 'different'. Being different here is punished brutally. Different people get mocked, ostracized, raped, tortured, and murdered. They are banned. To be a Communist is banned. To be gay is banned. To be an atheist is banned. To be a Taoist is banned. Being one of a thousand things is banned.
In any event, the proper question isn't what a journalist thinks is relevant but what his or her audience thinks is relevant. Denying people information they would find useful because you think they shouldn't find it useful is censorship, not journalism.
Will his work survive? Alas, I worry that it will not. As an American liberal with impeccable credentials, I would like to say that political correctness is going to kill American liberalism if it is not fought to the death by people like me for the dangers it represents to free speech, to the exchange of ideas, to openheartedness, or to the spirit of art itself. Political correctness has a stranglehold on academia, on feminism, and on the media. It is a form of both madness and maggotry, and has already silenced the voices of writers like James Dicky across the land.
Let me be clear: I am not an advocate of censorship.
The political core of any movement for freedom in the society has to have the political imperative to protect free speech.
Wherever the relevance of speech is at stake, matters become political by definition, for speech is what makes man a political being.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!