The test for, or touchstone of, whether these msm outlets are for “free speech” or not is whether certain groups can be mentioned, and their behaviour questioned. Above all, Jews and their perceived behaviour, meaning both on the individual basis, and on the group or communal basis.
If a “free speech” outlet, or pressure group, or political party, treats the so-called “JQ” (Jewish Question) as taboo, then it can be binned as worthless. Over to you, Talk Radio! Over to you, Jeremy Kyle!
For example, we have recently seen the emergence of the Free Speech Union. It has a Twitter account, and well-known figures from the “controlled opposition” lead it or belong to it, but the FSU has never once, not one single time, supported the freedom of expression of, say, Alison Chabloz (imprisoned for taking part in an Internet “radio” podcast discussion which mentioned Jews), or Jez Turner (imprisoned for making a speech in Whitehall which mentioned Jews) etc.
My own experiences have likewise never been mentioned by any “Free Speech Union” drone: see https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/; and https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/.
Not one “human rights” barrister, or “free speech” talking head, or newspaper scribbler, supported me by word or deed. Not one was brave enough to do so. Useless venal people.
The following exchange on Twitter illustrates the point about what is or is not free speech:
One still sees, on Twitter (often the online home of the ignorant) the contention that “you have free speech but are not free from the consequences of your free speech“.
The above frankly moronic assertion is not uncommonly seen on Twitter. Even those who certainly should know better (eg the odd law lecturer from a “McUniversity”) are seen to come out with the assertion as if it were a judgment of Solomon.
Naturally, a moment’s thought makes it clear that, if you “have free speech but not freedom from consequences“, then Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, even Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or North Korea, had “free speech”. You can say whatever you like, but you may then end up in the “GULAG Archipelago”, or the Cambodian “Killing Fields”.
Not a very plausible assertion.
There should be unlimited free speech on social, historical, and political questions, no matter whether this or that ethnic or religious group feels offended. In fact, it is usually only a tiny part of any minority ethnic or religious group that is disposed to find “offence” or indeed to seek it out.
An obvious example of the above is the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA”, which purports to represent Jewish-Zionist interests in the UK, yet in fact is a tiny minority of a minority. Somewhere well below 500 members. Its few public demonstrations since it started in 2014 have been attended by 50 to 100 individuals, despite its friends in the msm inflating the figures to hundreds and, in one egregious instance, inflating an attendance of about a hundred or so to “thousands”!
Incidentally, there are about 250,000 Jews in the UK, perhaps more, so the “CAA” membership, thought to be a few hundred at most, is representative of only one UK-based Jew out of about every 1,000 or 2,000.
The same transnational conspiracy, but taking different forms in various countries.
Don’t people understand? Once you set up a system like that, and start incarcerating people on spurious “health” grounds, there is no going back. The system can be repurposed, the camps can be repurposed, at any time. “Health”, “Covid-19”, “spreading fake news”, “wrong attitudes”, “racist”, “anti-Semitic”, “harmful to public order” etc…
The father of Spanish classical guitar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Segovia
When Segovia died, his death (and life) was almost ignored by the BBC and other UK msm, because Segovia was not anti-Franco.
and I hope will outlive it.
Aux armes, citoyens!