To shout about shouting can seem a self-aggrandising exercise. Getting m' on-a-platform (pulpit?) deluded rocks-off. Think 'doing something' to make better, this crazy world. The attention getter, needing to feel virtuous signals. Caring and honest kicks.

Add, the rattling about on the www without clicks. Doubt this post gets many/if at all readers...

More pertinent, neither do some areas of enquiry. Breaks through a leaning to shut-up. Get a beer crate, overturn and stand -- Holla. Gotta, while we can. Nb. 'while..'.

Quite the combo. Call to make a right-standing noise. Shout-Out, the ideal term. While interest in the collapse of free-expression is conspicuous in its selective range. P.C. talk, esp. gender and sexuality, and Tommy Robinson are in the charts. Alison C? Hardly a mention.

Apart from Styxhexenhammer666.

Do think it's a scoop when all so quite/about. Plus: matters.

There's a growing number of 'offenders'. Nazi-jokes with a dog and a young gal quoting a rap lyric to 'pay tribute to a boy who died in a road crash'. Now Alison Chabloz for linking online, to her own deemed 'grossly offensive' material.

Daniel and Lesley in The JC conclude in 'celebration'; It is naïve to suggest that Holocaust denial should be allowed so that it can be openly debated. Holocaust denial has persisted despite the fact that the Holocaust is one of the best documented genocides in history, with huge volumes of evidence documenting virtually every aspect of it. Holocaust deniers are malicious propagandists who cannot be reasoned with or engaged; they have to be silenced.

The judgement in Alison's case had nothing to do with the validity of truth-claims. The conviction was for offence, which the article states, stir up age-old resentments. The implication, leading to hate crime and thereby the 'denial' (never is) of The Holocaust (never 'a'...) -- the cause.

'Precedent' is the word. Yet, will we return?

Maintain, Zionism is the enemy of the people living in the land called Israel. The must push and push until there's war. The alternative would be proportionate protection and edge-about a solution for Palestine. Give a little... Instead, its leaders go on without a care about and regarded as essential right-ethics.

Accompanying anti-Semitism is the spearhead in the killing of freedom to express ourselves.

Banning Stephen Sizer in 2015 from internet output and now Chabloz is where it's going. The jails are too full but internet ASBO's will be enough to begin the lights out.

This Lucien Greaves article has much sense to convey. Sum up in the following.

...going to jump off and leave it here for today. Got stuff could spout on. Best dash em out and go.

Final note: There's something in Brendon O'Connell thesis. Needs more evidence for all his claims. Especially about Syria. Has Israel in an act in less popular and recognised alliances. Even so, this still places their state in danger of someone/somehow causing destruction. Don't want to see that or any more mayhem but what happens if you keep hitting?

As with US-led/looking warfare inc? A near-trillion on the books annual budget. Set to escalate terror and horror until the dollar cracks?

What drives our mania?

Lostness and pride.

Being knowing-wrong and repenting is what we need.

Lucien:

In her 2018 book, Hate: Why We Should Resist it with Free Speech, Not Censorship, New York Law School professor Nadine Strossen summarizes data collected from academics, human rights advocacy groups, and policy experts worldwide from which she concludes, “‘hate speech’ laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive.” Noting the persistence in bigoted behavior and racist politics in countries where anti-hate speech laws are strongest, Strossen states:

“Censoring any material increases an audience’s desire to obtain it and disposes the audience to be more receptive to it. This phenomenon is so prevalent that several widely used terms have been coined to describe it, including the ‘boomerang effect,’ the ‘forbidden fruits effect,’ and the ‘Streisand effect’.” Worse yet, “[e]ven in developed democracies, enforcement of ‘hate speech’ laws is likely to increase, not decrease, intergroup tensions. Experience teaches that the most effective way to reduce or resolve intergroup conflicts is through cooperative, conciliatory approaches, rather than through ‘lawfare.’”