I know you think you're being very clever, with your disingenuous "A LITTLE", but ironically it really is only a little hyperbole in the grandparent comment. For fuck's sake, partners of journalists in the UK are being intimidated by the government. If I was the journalist I'd be very hesitant to travel at all. This is in bloody england, remember, the progenitor of everything we think about when we think "the west".
Open your eyes. Look how far things have come. This is not about LOLPOINTS™ on the internet, this is actually getting pretty damn real, and people are worried.
If you think that equating journalism with terrorism is only slight hyperbole then you have no place in reasonable discussion.
It is excessive hyperbole that helps nobody and serves only to polarise discussions. In reality the statements so far indicate that they stopped Miranda in order to determine if he was carrying information likely to be of use to terrorists. This seems to be an illegitimate use of the powers, which we'll find out soon.
That is a reasonable take on the matters, not 'JOURNALISM NOW IS TERRORISM!!!!!'
I can't tell if you're arguing against me, or the UK government - you know, the ones who detained the partner of a journalist using anti-terrorism law. That is where this connection was made.
Of course I think their actions are outrageous and unreasonable. In the light of them, however, hypothesising that supporting The Guardian financially may be construed by those in power as financing terrorism is mere extrapolation.
> In the light of them, however, hypothesising that supporting The Guardian financially may be construed by those in power as financing terrorism is mere extrapolation.
Do you think repeating yourself makes you right? It does not. You've not earned any kind of right to dismiss the matter with statements like that.
I actually looked at the age of your account before replying because I thought you were a troll. Unfortunately it looks like those suspicions were well-founded. 822 days - wow, you bided your time.
> Do you think repeating yourself makes you right? It does not. You've not earned any kind of right to dismiss the matter with that kind of language.
You are not the arbiter of discussion.
> I actually looked at the age of your account before replying because I suspected you to be a troll. Unfortunately it looks like those suspicious were well-founded. 822 days old - wow, you bided your time.
Ironically I was just discussing how irrational conspiracy theorists use contradictory information to confirm their existing beliefs. Thank you for providing me with a perfect example.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. What conspiracy theories? We are talking about the frigging news.
Do you know what a troll is? It's someone who asserts deliberately stupid/annoying arguments to get a rise out of everyone else, who are trying to have a sincere discussion.
In other words, someone who sounds exactly like you. I won't be wasting any more time here.
> Do you know what a troll is? It's someone who asserts deliberately stupid/annoying arguments to get a rise out of everyone else, who are trying to have a sincere discussion.
> In other words, someone who sounds exactly like you
I am calling for rational discussion and no hyperbole. You must be practically incapable of reading to confuse yourself in such a manner.
David was detained using a law explicitly written for use against terrorists, to detain them in airports for up to nine hours without counsel. Also to not answer questions would land him in prison.
So... it's not hyperbolic at all to say that journalism is equated with terrorism, because the state us using laws designed for use against terrorists against journalists.
> David was detained using a law explicitly written for use against terrorists
Incorrect, it is applicable to all travellers entering the United Kingdom
> to detain them in airports for up to nine hours without counsel
Incorrect, he refused counsel.
> Also to not answer questions would land him in prison.
There's no real evidence of this, there is a 'must not interfere' clause but it has never been tested.
> So... it's not hyperbolic at all to say that journalism is equated with terrorism, because the state us using laws designed for use against terrorists against journalists.
> Wake up.
Could you use more of a cliché? It's hyperbole, you have just proven as much by your complete ignorance on the subject.
If you aren't permitted counsel of your choice (and he wasn't) but only counsel selected by the police (which he was offered), then you are effectively denied counsel.
> You may as well claim duty solicitors are in the palm of the Police.
While there is still a potential agency problem, duty solicitors (or, in American parlance, public defenders) aren't an alternative to counsel of choice, they exist to provide the choice to have some counsel to people who otherwise would have none, without denying them the choice of securing any of their own to the extent they can.
Providing the option of a duty solicitor is not, then, at all the same as denying someone access to willing counsel of their choice.
> David was detained using a law explicitly written for use against terrorists
It was written for use against terrorism, not against terrorists. It is notable because it doesn't require any suspicion that the target actually is a terrorist. So targeting a journalist under it isn't equating journalism with terrorism, because it is not, and never has been, a requirement of the law that the police have any basis to think you are a terrorist to target you under the law.
Open your eyes. Look how far things have come. This is not about LOLPOINTS™ on the internet, this is actually getting pretty damn real, and people are worried.