Was this the start of a US Presidential campaign

[iceman]

The owners of those social media sites can wield a good measure of control when they want to. A reason to check the ownership control structures, and ensure your current affairs sources are wide-ranging.

I am quite surprised by some of the comments here that are obviously in favour of limiting free speech. I think it is appalling that Government and media colluded to limit discussion on Hunter Biden's illegal activities.
I am totally against such limits and that includes our Government under Jacinda signing contracts with media and giving them money, as long as they sing her tune both on COVID and Maori issues.
Just for clarification Bjauck, I read news daily from a variety of international media as I am sure you do. And I certainly am not a Trump supporter. I would never vote for him, even if I could.

[ynot]

Just for clarification Bjauck, I read news daily from a variety of international media as I am sure you do. And I certainly am not a Trump supporter. I would never vote for him, even if I could.

Sometimes you can't always get what you want but if I was a US voter I would not be voting Democrat.

[jonu]

I am quite surprised by some of the comments here that are obviously in favour of limiting free speech. I think it is appalling that Government and media colluded to limit discussion on Hunter Biden's illegal activities.
I am totally against such limits and that includes our Government under Jacinda signing contracts with media and giving them money, as long as they sing her tune both on COVID and Maori issues.
Just for clarification Bjauck, I read news daily from a variety of international media as I am sure you do. And I certainly am not a Trump supporter. I would never vote for him, even if I could.

The MSM are brazen about it. There was an accord signed back about 2016 that they would not publish views that didn't support the "official" narrative on Climate Change.

The common denominator across MSM? Something like 20% ownership by BlackRock and its affiliates. The inventors of ESG which was a natural fit with DEI. It's no wonder MSM is woke and going broke.
BTW, DEI is being dropped like a hot spud by many US corporates. The proof has been in the pudding. Just ask Disney and Budweiser.

I see media here have begun a hit job on Candace Owens, calling her "Far Right" ahead of her visit. She's a conservative that they continually quote out of context to paint her as anti-Semite. She worked for a pro-Jewish organisation for 2 and half years!

They tried the same with Jordan Peterson and Posey Parker. Parker's persecution ended up with her and an elderly woman being assaulted in Albert park...for championing women's rights. Owen's biggest "crimes" are probably her expose of the corrupt BLM organisation, her denouncing of giving puberty blockers to children and highlighting a prominent Jewish organisation's political lobbying in the US. NZ has the highest usage of puberty blockers per capita in the world. The Cass Report in the UK has caused a sea change against this world wide but NZ hasn't yet even acknowledged it due presumably to the sway the trans movement and their bullying of anybody who speaks in opposition.

Owens can certainly be annoying and no doubt holds views people will disagree with, but she also throws light on topics that aren't covered by MSM

And further BTW, Facebook was far from alone in burying/denying the Hunter Biden laptop. The NY Times and Washington Post were also prominent.

[moka]

I am quite surprised by some of the comments here that are obviously in favour of limiting free speech. I think it is appalling that Government and media colluded to limit discussion on Hunter Biden's illegal activities.
I am totally against such limits and that includes our Government under Jacinda signing contracts with media and giving them money, as long as they sing her tune both on COVID and Maori issues.
Just for clarification Bjauck, I read news daily from a variety of international media as I am sure you do. And I certainly am not a Trump supporter. I would never vote for him, even if I could.

There is no such thing as free speech, it does have limits. But it is deciding where those limits are that is difficult. Deciding who has free speech, or whose speech is the dominant narrative is a complex issue without simple answers. This is a list of how government can restrict free speech, but business also has a lot of power to restrict or allow speech in the interests of profits, reputation, and also restricting what employees say.

Limitations
Most legal systems recognize specific restrictions on free speech:
Incitement to Violence: Speech that directly incites imminent lawless action or violence is typically not protected.
Defamation and Fraud: False statements that damage a person's reputation (defamation) or deceive others for financial gain (fraud) are generally not protected.
Obscenity and Child Pornography: These categories of speech are often restricted or banned outright.
Intellectual Property: Speech that violates copyright, trademark, or patent laws may be limited.
True Threats: Statements that communicate a serious intent to commit unlawful violence against an individual or group.
Commercial Speech: Advertising and other commercial communications may be subject to certain restrictions.
Many jurisdictions attempt to balance free speech with other important societal values:
Hate Speech: While protected in some countries (like the United States), many democracies restrict hate speech that targets vulnerable groups.
National Security: Speech that poses a clear danger to national security may be limited.
Privacy and Reputation: Free speech rights are often balanced against individuals' rights to privacy and protection of their reputation.
The government may have broader powers to restrict speech in certain contexts:
Workplace: As an employer, the government has more latitude to regulate employee speech.
Military: Speech by military personnel may be more tightly controlled.
Prisons: Inmates' speech rights are often more limited than those of the general public.

[fungus pudding]

There is no such thing as free speech,..........................................

What an absurd comment. If there is no such thing, how can 'most legal systems recognise specific restrictions' on it!

[ynot]

There is no such thing as free speech, it does have limits. But it is deciding where those limits are that is difficult. Deciding who has free speech, or whose speech is the dominant narrative is a complex issue without simple answers. This is a list of how government can restrict free speech, but business also has a lot of power to restrict or allow speech in the interests of profits, reputation, and also restricting what employees say.

Limitations
Most legal systems recognize specific restrictions on free speech:
Incitement to Violence: Speech that directly incites imminent lawless action or violence is typically not protected.
Defamation and Fraud: False statements that damage a person's reputation (defamation) or deceive others for financial gain (fraud) are generally not protected.
Obscenity and Child Pornography: These categories of speech are often restricted or banned outright.
Intellectual Property: Speech that violates copyright, trademark, or patent laws may be limited.
True Threats: Statements that communicate a serious intent to commit unlawful violence against an individual or group.
Commercial Speech: Advertising and other commercial communications may be subject to certain restrictions.
Many jurisdictions attempt to balance free speech with other important societal values:
Hate Speech: While protected in some countries (like the United States), many democracies restrict hate speech that targets vulnerable groups.
National Security: Speech that poses a clear danger to national security may be limited.
Privacy and Reputation: Free speech rights are often balanced against individuals' rights to privacy and protection of their reputation.
The government may have broader powers to restrict speech in certain contexts:
Workplace: As an employer, the government has more latitude to regulate employee speech.
Military: Speech by military personnel may be more tightly controlled.
Prisons: Inmates' speech rights are often more limited than those of the general public.

These limitations have holes in them big enough to drive a bus through.

[moka]

.........

I see media here have begun a hit job on Candace Owens, calling her "Far Right" ahead of her visit. She's a conservative that they continually quote out of context to paint her as anti-Semite. She worked for a pro-Jewish organisation for 2 and half years!

Owen's biggest "crimes" are probably her expose of the corrupt BLM organisation, her denouncing of giving puberty blockers to children and highlighting a prominent Jewish organisation's political lobbying in the US. NZ has the highest usage of puberty blockers per capita in the world. The Cass Report in the UK has caused a sea change against this world wide but NZ hasn't yet even acknowledged it due presumably to the sway the trans movement and their bullying of anybody who speaks in opposition.

Owens can certainly be annoying and no doubt holds views people will disagree with, but she also throws light on topics that aren't covered by MSM

While Owens did work for an organization Turning Point USA, that is generally supportive of Israel, her more recent actions and statements have put her at odds with many Jewish and pro-Israel groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens

Candace Owens said evidence of human experimentation by the Nazis ‘sounds like bizarre propaganda’ and suggested the Holocaust did not happen
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/27/ho...-condemnation/
In recent videos published to her YouTube channel, Owens questioned whether key elements of the Holocaust had occurred. She said the well-documented human experimentation conducted by Nazi doctor Josef Mengele at the Auschwitz concentration camp “just sounds like bizarre propaganda” and called the Holocaust “an ethnic cleansing [that] almost took place”.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia...310377b43fcd09
Oldest surviving victim of Nazis Angel of death' demands Albanese government deny Candace Owens visa for her upcoming tour

[moka]

.........
I see media here have begun a hit job on Candace Owens, calling her "Far Right" ahead of her visit. She's a conservative that they continually quote out of context to paint her as anti-Semite. She worked for a pro-Jewish organisation for 2 and half years!

Owen's biggest "crimes" are probably her expose of the corrupt BLM organisation, her denouncing of giving puberty blockers to children and highlighting a prominent Jewish organisation's political lobbying in the US. NZ has the highest usage of puberty blockers per capita in the world. The Cass Report in the UK has caused a sea change against this world wide but NZ hasn't yet even acknowledged it due presumably to the sway the trans movement and their bullying of anybody who speaks in opposition.

Owens can certainly be annoying and no doubt holds views people will disagree with, but she also throws light on topics that aren't covered by MSM

New Zealand appears to have a relatively high use of puberty blockers compared to some other countries, based on the available information.
New Zealand has seen a significant increase in the prescription of puberty blockers over the past decade:
In 2022, 416 young people aged 12-17 were taking puberty blocking hormones, compared to just 48 in 2011.
The total number of 9-17 year olds on puberty blockers increased from 137 in 2010 to 703 in 2020.

Several factors may be contributing to New Zealand's high usage rate:

• There is no minimum age for prescribing puberty blockers in New Zealand.
• Some clinicians in New Zealand advocate for a "consent-based approach," which may make access easier.
• New Zealand continues to follow guidelines stating puberty blockers are "considered to be fully reversible," while some other countries have become more cautious.
• The prescribing rate appears to be much higher in New Zealand. For example, one youth clinic in Christchurch reported 65 out of 100 patients were on puberty blockers.
• In 2021 a clinician from a DHB in Auckland reported 300 current patients

In summary, the available data suggests New Zealand has a substantially higher rate of puberty blocker use compared to countries like England, with a more decentralized and less restrictive prescribing approach. However, this practice is currently under review by health authorities.

https://www.publicgood.org.nz/2022/09/13/the-closure-of-englands-youth-gender-medicine-clinic-and-its-impacts-for-new-zealand/

The Ministry of Health is currently reviewing the evidence on puberty blockers:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-z...of-health.html 29/06/2023

[jonu]

While Owens did work for an organization Turning Point USA, that is generally supportive of Israel, her more recent actions and statements have put her at odds with many Jewish and pro-Israel groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens

Candace Owens said evidence of human experimentation by the Nazis ‘sounds like bizarre propaganda’ and suggested the Holocaust did not happen
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/27/ho...-condemnation/
In recent videos published to her YouTube channel, Owens questioned whether key elements of the Holocaust had occurred. She said the well-documented human experimentation conducted by Nazi doctor Josef Mengele at the Auschwitz concentration camp “just sounds like bizarre propaganda” and called the Holocaust “an ethnic cleansing [that] almost took place”.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia...310377b43fcd09
Oldest surviving victim of Nazis Angel of death' demands Albanese government deny Candace Owens visa for her upcoming tour

Moka, you have fallen into the trap of quoting those who quoted her out of context.
Her Mengele comments were basically saying it was so evil you couldn't make it up, not denying it. The ethnic cleansing statement was in reference to the attempt not working.

Many in the US question the blind support for Netanyahu's regime in Israel. That's not being anti-Jewish. Much in the same way of questioning the billions that have gone into Ukraine without proper oversight isn't anti-Ukrainian.

[jonu]

New Zealand appears to have a relatively high use of puberty blockers compared to some other countries, based on the available information.
New Zealand has seen a significant increase in the prescription of puberty blockers over the past decade:
In 2022, 416 young people aged 12-17 were taking puberty blocking hormones, compared to just 48 in 2011.
The total number of 9-17 year olds on puberty blockers increased from 137 in 2010 to 703 in 2020.

Several factors may be contributing to New Zealand's high usage rate:

• There is no minimum age for prescribing puberty blockers in New Zealand.
• Some clinicians in New Zealand advocate for a "consent-based approach," which may make access easier.
• New Zealand continues to follow guidelines stating puberty blockers are "considered to be fully reversible," while some other countries have become more cautious.
• The prescribing rate appears to be much higher in New Zealand. For example, one youth clinic in Christchurch reported 65 out of 100 patients were on puberty blockers.
• In 2021 a clinician from a DHB in Auckland reported 300 current patients

In summary, the available data suggests New Zealand has a substantially higher rate of puberty blocker use compared to countries like England, with a more decentralized and less restrictive prescribing approach. However, this practice is currently under review by health authorities.

https://www.publicgood.org.nz/2022/09/13/the-closure-of-englands-youth-gender-medicine-clinic-and-its-impacts-for-new-zealand/

The Ministry of Health is currently reviewing the evidence on puberty blockers:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-z...of-health.html 29/06/2023

These figures are appalling. The research has already been done. The Cass Report was damning of the whole "industry".