A government official who created and implemented government censorship regulation is a little bit more than "just engaging in speech". That's like saying Deng Xiaoping was "just directing traffic" when the tanks rolled in to Tiananmen.
They weren't implementing "government censorship regulation". They were trying to ensure the different views on speech in their own countries are respected and conformed to.
This is a clear example of global operators running up against the natural friction of conflicting national customs and laws.
It's a particularly knotty issue in the intuitively borderless and passionate medium of internet speech and won't be helped by regulators or commenters here ignoring that.
Apparently the U.S. has reached a point where it will punish foreign officials for policy decisions in their own countries simply because those decisions clash with Silicon Valley’s preferences.
Really sad to see the US sinking deeper and deeper every day.
As a person living in an EU country I feel the urge to say: the legislation which made them a target is definitely problematic and should never have been passed. If you consider Trumps an extremist wrt censorship, you should be aware that the linked legislation in the article opens up significant more headway for legal censorship then whatever Trump did to date. And the reason why they've most likely gotten targeted is because they tried to deplatdorm him back in 2024 by quoting how he's "amplifying hate" (under this legislation).
Frankly, legislation like this makes me dream about a reality in which there is a real independent federal court going through all passed legislation to verify wherever it's in line with the fundamental rights of the country - and if a legislation fails the check, all who voted yes would then be marked, with repeated offenders being investigated and potentially charged with attempted treason.
> all who voted yes would then be marked, with repeated offenders being investigated and potentially charged with attempted treason.
Not possible by design in any country. Democratic countries would invoke separation of power, authoritarian countries wouldn't have independent justice in the first place.
People usually call separation of power that the people that
* apply the law to cases (judges)
* execute these decisions (police)
* decide what the law is (politicians)
Need to be separate organizations.
My daydream you've cited there would not be in violation of this, and I struggle to see how you would think it is.
You're surely aware that such a court already exists in all democratic nations I'm aware of and can slash down these passed laws already/force amendments to be made for it to take effect, yes?
Or did you take offense how I didn't write a 10 page document outlining how this could be legally implemented in a specific country?
A politician can't be investigated or prosecuted for doing his/her job, no matter how badly incompetent or evil it is. If a judge would have the power to do that, then it indirectly gains the legislative power which breaks the separation of pwers.
A politician can be held accountable of they break the law.
This should be obvious to anyone, otherwise actual corruption would be legal - not just the similie of lobbying which does effectively the same, but skirts the actual legality by not promising anything for the money received
What I obviously said was make voting for anything clearly incompatible with the foundational laws to be illegal, just like actual corruption already is. Hence no, it would not be in violation and I continue to be surprised you're unironically of this opinion
If Turmp was that much of a planner, he could have easily had a second term in 2020 by simply acknowledging Covid as a problem and actually leading the country. I don't think he himself has any real plan. He's just fucking aggro-demented [0] lashing out at his lifetime of grievances and trauma. Some trafficked Venezuelan girl probably didn't smile enough as he was about to use her or something. I'm sure the people around him all have their larger plans though.
[0] anyone that's cared for old people sees the two very different archetypes in "sleepy joe" vs "destructive don"
As an aside I think if you were to make a proper world police it would support democracy against autocrats who won't leave and and that kind of situation seems to be the case in Venezuala - https://lagranaldea.com/2025/11/28/most-venezuelans-consider...
If you recall how it played out, he seemed pretty confident that pressing certain people to find votes and storming the capital would … well he was right wasn’t he? I mean, behaved like it would be and it was. Here we are.
That's just immediate reaction though, not planning. You don't even really have to pin the blame fully on him, if the people around him were whispering in his ear that the election was really stolen, etc. In fact such true belief would make him a better salesman. (Although in the mind of that type of con artist I doubt there is much of a distinction between reality and what they want to be true)
Europeans spend all their time complaining rather than building the next Google. That's why they have no Googles and we aren't going to let them in anymore. Regulation is also bad. /s
The way I see it, if they don't want to be called fascists then they need to find a new label that accurately describes their desired goals. As long as they keep hiding behind this preposterous cloak of "conservative" to cover for an extremely radical agenda, I will use the label "fascist" as it seems to be the most-fitting existing term.
Alternatively they can explain how their agenda differs from fascism, rather than most arguments being of the form that <fascist dynamic> is required due to <some perceived emergency>.
There is, I just believe that generally people on the left have different viewpoint on this article than people on the right, and that's the main deciding factor.
And whenever that's true, the comments get politically heated without any substantive debate between the sides.
I love to debate with friends on the opposite side than me, but strictly offline where I can learn much more from them.
reply