Agreed. Will be glad to read your impressions after the Snowden interview and any further opposition.
What a shitbag, stupid too cause if Snowden was what he says the best thing to discredit him is to let him talk, the way people let Pompeo talk.
How is Snowden not credible? No one in the US denied anything that was leaked.
Snowden is not credible because nobody believes that a US Representative from the great State of Kansas would ever lie to us. Our leaders have proclaimed him a traitor. What right have we to argue? Does Poe's Law still apply if you invoke it?
with the badge-scanning required for entry to the bigger events here at SX, does attendance at the Snowden event put you on the extra-extra special watch list? (assuming attending a web conference in the first place puts you on the standard-issue special watch list)
Maybe, maybe not. But Cole's Law, as regards the 1st Amendment, surely applies in this case.
The description is a little misleading. If you click through to actually read the guy's letter, he says, "I strongly urge you to withdraw this invitation." He goes on to say if they do continue with Snowden's virtual appearance, they should ask him a bunch of questions that the Rep suggests, and concludes by saying, "Thank you for considering this request to withdraw your invitation to Edward Snowden." Yeah, the rest of the letter is Cold War nonsense about Russia and freedoms, but he doesn't demand anything or threaten anybody's right to free spech. The letter is dumb enough without misrepresentation.
If Rep. Pompeo doubts the quality of the Snowden's presentation, let me be the first to purchase his admission ticket. I'm offering double face value.
In the United States, we have a free press, and Pompeo has no right to make any such demands on editors - we need to maintain editorial independence, and I hope the editors/producers of the show think it is important too. It is Pompeo's personal and very self-righteous opinion that Snowden is a traitor - no American court of law has deemed it so.
Furthermore, Pompeo has proven himself to be an arrogant, work-shy hypocrite who remains accountable to American voters like myself, who were foolish enough to vote for him first time round. It is also my observation that Pompeo has always been full of excuses for his poor track-record, and is quick to slur anyone who asks questions about it. Overall, Pompeo is the last person on earth qualified to call anyone a traitor. Many Americans like myself are confident that Edward Snowden is a national hero; Pompeo is a waste of space. No doubt about it.
I think that was a mistake for Not Serious.
Because we should only listen to the Very Serious People and shouldn't listen to the Not Serious People who oppose Free Trade, National Security, Supporting Our Job Creators, the Inv- Liberation of Iraq for It Was Always About Spreading Democracy, Intervention in Syria, and other Very Serious Policies.
Is the description:
"Kansas Rep Pompeo wants to cancel Snowden’s SXSW appearance"
not applicable to the statement
Thank you for considering this request to withdraw your invitation to Edward Snowden."
Or are you reffering to some other decription?
EDIT: See below for the reply but I felt I should also put a bit up here as I agree. There is a specific quote in the article, copied (in the publishing sense) on the BB post.
Actually, you'll find that Ed Snowden does not oppose National Security, if that's what you're suggesting. He describes himself as a patriot and wishes spying to continue: "I love my country, and I believe that spying serves a vital purpose and must continue."
I'll stop here, but his actions have actually strengthened the hands of the governments who are conducting mass-surveillance.
Maybe I should have put a TM after each catchphrase, although capitalizing Very Serious People, Free Trade, Job Creators, and the other doublespeak should give some context for National Security. National Security TM seems to have little to do with anyone's security except for certain corporations and certain agencies' own security.
No one has said it yet? Fine, I will: Christ, what an asshole.
"information is like a bank. some of us are rich, some of us are poor with information. all of us can be rich. Our job, your job is to rob the bank, to kill the guards. You go out there to destroy everybody who keeps and hides the whole information."
If Snowdon dumped all the documents on the public, very few would take his side or defend him, no matter how damning those docs are. That is the reality we live in. I see no better way to have handled this situation. He's been a cagey chess player, and his current position is, quite frankly, the best he could've hoped for. Some people claim he is a false flag, but I don't see it. Very few even took the topic of privacy seriously before this. Now everyone is talking about it. That can only be seen as a net positive no matter how much had been left out.
The text of the hotlink itself (and the linked to article) says that he "demanded" that Snowden's speech be cancelled, and the final line seems to be implying that there's some kind of First Amendment abuse going on. Neither is true. He asked that they cancel, not demanded, and he didn't make any threats about what he'd do if it didn't happen. He exercised his First Amendment right to complain about Snowden.
I don't agree with Pompeo's position, but "demand" and "request" aren't synonyms, and nobody's First Amendment rights are being trampled by him asking SXSW to reconsider. It might seem nitpicky (and in a way, it probably is), but Pompeo's lunkheadedness is clear enough without distorting the truth or implying he's trying illegally stop someone from speaking.
I have do idea why Snowden's revalations are in any way hurtful to the country. If anything, yer man has told people what they needed to be told. IMHO, of course.
thanks and I agree, the actual wording of his "request" doesn't make any specific demands but that aspect of his letter may be the only part that isn't hyperbolic.