Trump Administration Has Frozen the EPA and Barred Multiple Agencies From Speaking to the Press
199 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Vlevs;51724433]Censorship can apply to any information down to private correspondence and conversations. And in this case, it [B]is[/B] in regards to mass media. Preventing researchers from giving statements and freely sharing information to public through whatever media they choose is unambiguously harming free flow of information. There is absolutely a case to be made for Soviet-style censorship:
After denouncing and blocking media for doing unfavorable reporting and going for straight-up lies when convenient, subjecting civil services and science under political control is [b]yet another step towards[/B] stranglehold over free information, situation which bears similarities to how Soviet Union handled it. You can make that comparison with reasonable merit, calling it lunacy is wanting to be in denial.[/QUOTE]
Soviet-style censorship included media though, like you could not publish an article before it was approved by a censor. What Trump did so far is block information from getting to the media.
Like I said I thought to call it censorship you have to [I]directly [/I]censor the media not indirectly by limiting their access to the information.
And yeah you can be reasonable about making a point that it's a step closer to soviet-style censorship but posting as it's already happened is just going to get our side ridiculed.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51724515]Soviet-style censorship included media though, like you could not publish an article before it was approved by a censor. What Trump did so far is block information from getting to the media.
Like I said I thought to call it censorship you have to [I]directly [/I]censor the media not indirectly by limiting their access to the information.
And yeah you can be reasonable about making a point that it's a step closer to soviet-style censorship but posting as it's already happened is just going to get our side ridiculed.[/QUOTE]
What are you even arguing? Internet is a media and government employees are prevented from publishing their articles in it, among other platforms. If you mean it can't be soviet-style censorship because they didn't have the internet, then you're correct.
I bet Trump saw the Simpsons movie and thought EPA were the bad guys.
[QUOTE=Vlevs;51724616]What are you even arguing? Internet is a media and government employees are prevented from publishing their articles in it, among other platforms. If you mean it can't be soviet-style censorship because they didn't have the internet, then you're correct.[/QUOTE]
Jesus calm down. I'm not making any strong arguments here. Like I said, I'm not sure myself if I'm using the word correctly and I wanted to know if I'm not.
What Trump did is censor "government employees" officially publishing certain information. It's not like he made it illegal for CNN or you to publish articles about global warming. That's why I'm wondering if calling it censorship isn't a bit of a stretch. But don't flame me for this like I'm whitewashing what Trump is doing or something. For the third time, I'm simply doubting if I understand using the term correctly.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51724675]Jesus calm down. I'm not making any strong arguments here. Like I said, I'm not sure myself if I'm using the word correctly and I wanted to know if I'm not.
What Trump did is censor "government employees" officially publishing certain information. It's not like he made it illegal for CNN or you to publish articles about global warming. That's why I'm wondering if calling it censorship isn't a bit of a stretch. But don't flame me for this like I'm whitewashing what Trump is doing or something. For the third time, I'm simply doubting if I understand using the term correctly.[/QUOTE]
Alright. Then I ask you to tone down rhetoric for calling it "lunacy".
censorship
noun
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
[quote]Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]
Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. Censorship could be direct or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship.[/quote]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship[/url]
Here censorship is a fitting term because it's practiced by the government towards non-critical information aimed at public consumption. Qualifier "soviet style" IMHO works because this is suppressing information that is unfavorable towards administration but useful to public. Soviets were keen towards suppressing politically inconvenient science.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51724675]Jesus calm down. I'm not making any strong arguments here. Like I said, I'm not sure myself if I'm using the word correctly and I wanted to know if I'm not.
What Trump did is censor "government employees" officially publishing certain information. It's not like he made it illegal for CNN or you to publish articles about global warming. That's why I'm wondering if calling it censorship isn't a bit of a stretch. But don't flame me for this like I'm whitewashing what Trump is doing or something. For the third time, I'm simply doubting if I understand using the term correctly.[/QUOTE]
He hasn't made it illegal for CNN to publish articles about global warming, but in case you missed it, the EPA and other agencies cannot release anything to the press without approval from his administration, which kind of has the same effect
It's not censorship of the the media directly, instead it's censorship of their sources, which to my mind is almost worse
[QUOTE=Sitkero;51724772]He hasn't made it illegal for CNN to publish articles about global warming, but in case you missed it, the EPA and other agencies cannot release anything to the press without approval from his administration, which kind of has the same effect
[B]It's not censorship of the the media directly, instead it's censorship of their sources,[/B] which to my mind is almost worse[/QUOTE]
Right, that's exactly why I had doubts.
[QUOTE=Vlevs;51724759]Alright. Then I ask you to tone down rhetoric for calling it "lunacy".[/QUOTE]
1. I didn't call it "lunacy" I said that "raving about soviet America makes the side that opposes this look like a bunch of lunatics." In other words if you rave incoherently about how America is just like soviet Russia now you will get called a "lunatic" [B]by other people[/B].
2. I did not say that every mention of Trump going in the direction of soviet-style censorship is going to get you ridiculed, I said raving about it like it already happened will. In the part of my post you conveniently snipped.
[QUOTE=Vlevs;51724759]censorship
noun
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
[quote]Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]
Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. Censorship could be direct [B]or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship[/B][/quote]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship[/URL][/QUOTE]
Right so it's soft censorship then. Thanks. It would have been much easier without you spitting vitriol at me.
[QUOTE=Vlevs;51724759]Here censorship is a fitting term because it's practiced by the government towards non-critical information aimed at public consumption. Qualifier "soviet style" IMHO works because this is suppressing information that is unfavorable towards administration but useful to public. Soviets were keen towards suppressing politically inconvenient science.[/QUOTE]
Blocking information from getting to the public from government officials and agencies is only a part of the censorship that the soviet Russia was implementing. The biggest part of their censorship that you could not say anything bad about the government or present any information unfavorable towards it. That included individuals and all news outlets. I think that until news stations are being censored calling it soviet-style censorship is dishonest and downgrading how bad the censorship in soviet Russia actually was.
Like I said you can reasonably say that it's going in that direction and I will agree, but saying we're already there is dishonest and sensationalist.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51724848]Right, that's exactly why I had doubts.
1. I didn't call it "lunacy" I said that "raving about soviet America makes the side that opposes this look like a bunch of lunatics." In other words if you rave incoherently about how America is just like soviet Russia now you will get called a "lunatic" [B]by other people[/B].
2. I did not say that every mention of Trump going in the direction of soviet-style censorship is going to get you ridiculed, I said raving about it like it already happened will. In the part of my post you conveniently snipped.
Right so it's soft censorship then. Thanks. It would have been much easier without you spitting vitriol at me.
Blocking information from getting to the public from government officials and agencies is only a part of the censorship that the soviet Russia was implementing. The biggest part of their censorship that you could not say anything bad about the government or present any information unfavorable towards it. That included individuals and all news outlets. I think that until news stations are being censored calling it soviet-style censorship is dishonest and downgrading how bad the censorship in soviet Russia actually was.
Like I said you can reasonably say that it's going in that direction and I will agree, but saying we're already there is dishonest and sensationalist.[/QUOTE]
No, they're directly censoring the government agencies. It's just censorship.
It doesn't have to be against the media for it to be bad.
Just saw an update on this
[quote]After a report that the agency had told staff to stop releasing any "news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content,” BuzzFeed reported that another memo was sent Tuesday night from a top official for the department’s Agricultural Research Service that the original order should not have been issued and “is hereby rescinded.”
Prior to the memo, the agency disavowed the gag order, calling it “flawed” and indicating that new guidance would be sent to its employees.
“This internal email was released without Departmental direction, and prior to Departmental guidance being issued,” the USDA said in a statement.[/quote]
[url]http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316015-agriculture-department-lifts-order-for-lockdown-on-its-research-arm[/url]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/24/usda-science-researchers-ordered-to-stop-publishing-news-releases-other-documents/[/url]
[url]https://www.buzzfeed.com/dinograndoni/trump-agriculture-department?utm_term=.egMWWMdYXJ#.hbOkkA18RN[/url]
"It's just a prank, bro"
I'm not relaxing until I hear different from the EPA.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;51723735]No, I never said I was ok with it, you just assumed that. People basically trying to deny he could do any of this or that he couldn't hand down a directive to a government department.[/QUOTE]
You didn't say it, but the post you were countering specifically asked [I]"what makes it okay"[/I]. Nobody was saying he couldn't do it, just that it was awful that he did.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51721879]Please, I request any trump supporter to come and defend this action by the administration. [B]What makes it okay[/B] to silence aspects of the government that do not deal with national security.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;51722302]I'm not supporter, but information is only a small part of government policy, departments like these mentioned release data, but usually not views along with them, I don't see anything about data being held up, only views, [B]which means he is well within his rights[/B] to do this as he is the one paying the bills. You'll probably get the data, but only the administration will be there to basically say if that number is good or not.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=geel9;51725029]No, they're directly censoring the government agencies. It's just censorship. [/QUOTE]
Who the hell are [I]they[/I]? It's the government limiting the information [B]IT [/B]is going to release though [B]ITS OWN[/B] agencies to the public. There is no "they" and "government agencies", it's just the government.
All the news outlets, book writers and bloggers and whoever else can still publish articles and facts unfavorable to the government, but they will have limited access to the sources of the information. That's indirect censorship otherwise called soft censorship.
Now like I said just few posts above, I'm not trying to downplay what he's doing I was just wondering what's the correct term to use.
[QUOTE=geel9;51725029]It doesn't have to be against the media for it to be bad.[/QUOTE]
Where in the blue hell have I said it's not bad? Why are you making shit up? Do I have to make a disclaimer in every post that I think this is bad and I oppose it and I do not support Trump? Like... I said I oppose it on this very page and now you are making it look like I'm saying it's not "bad". Fucking hell.