Glenn Greenwald on resigning from his own publication due to censorship

I kept hearing of this Glen Greenwald guy, so I had to look it up. He mad about censorship. He wrote an article critical of Biden, and he was not allowed to post it, even on the company he co-founded. I do not trust the media, and this happens over and over again. Here is the interview.

He founded Intercept. He was from the Guardian and founded this news site but when he tried to post his article against the CIA he was not allowed to.

CIA is not supposed to be spying on us and turning on us. Interesting.

He never said the CIA was the ones that blocked him. Or did I misunderstood you?

No, he did not but he said he was blocked because the storyline was something with lines in it which criticized Joe Biden and his conduct telling the real facts and that the Neocons, the deep state, CIA, Media and Silicon Valley seem to be attached at the hip,

Glenn Greenwald is a lefty. and states, there was once a healthy skepticism but now it is gone.is what he points out. The reason for starting the Intercept is to bring awareness so that the government does not gain so much power it spies on its own citizens.

This is a great video.

They censor everyone who does not follow them including their own.

Response from “The Intercept.”

The response continues here:

1 Like

Did you expect them to say anything different? Conveniently they will provide corrections in time, meaning after the election when his article isn’t relevant

For now he is censored with no reason why

I did not have any expectation for what their words would be. When looking at a dispute, it is a matter of course to consider the statements from both sides of the conflict.

Uh Glenn Greenwald would not resign unless it went against his ethics as a journalist. The guy has been extraordinarily consistent. He is one of the biggest lefties I have heard when speaking on his values but his journalism and how he conducts himself has been exceptional.

1 Like

I sympathize with the guy, but for goodness sake, he’s a liberal. Why did he expect something different?

1 Like

In his defense, in the 80s - 90s it was more of the right that was for censorship of music, art, and video games. The left has shifted on the censorship issue but he has remained.

If I remember correctly, it was in that time that the video game and music industries came up with their own content warnings and ratings. I think there were hearings on the violence of “Mortal Kombat” and an album from NWA.

I get the impression that stances on censorship varry with the primary messages that come to mind to which it might be applied. Consider the examples of a social media post being blocked or an athlete being prohibited from signaling support for a social issue before a game. Both might be considered censorship, but one may be in support of censoring one of those things while opposing the other.

They did not answer him, but will
After the election

1 Like

Because there is a dramatic difference between liberals and progressives. Liberals believe in liberty, while progressives do not.

Liberals have basically two choices: be silenced by the authoritarian progressive movement, or side with conservatives to defend liberty and individual rights.

A lot of older liberals are unaware of the monster they helped create in modern progressivism. John Cleese and Richard Dawkins are some prime examples.

My comment is probably more philosophical than practical, but someone that identifies as progressive has some views that are not mainstream yet. If one day that progressive wakes up and finds the world has evolved to have the changes they wanted to see, that progressive may want them to stay that way. But if the world continues to change but the progressive does not, would that progressive then be viewed as a conservative?

It might be philosophical, but it doesn’t respond to the basic principles of the terms . There are certain sets of principles here. A constitutional conservative believes that individual rights are inherent, that they come from God or Natural Law. Government neither created nor provides for rights. It primary function is to defend rights.
The classical liberal position is effectively the same. The difference between the two is conservatives interpret the role of the general government to be less involved in the lives of the people.
My experience here and elsewhere is that progressives will not affirm that basic principle.
For conservatives and, I believe, liberals, this principle is unchanging.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.