It also doesn't seem to have any selectivity in consideration. So same question, why do you say it selectively ignores people it doesn't want to defend?
It also doesn't seem to have any selectivity in consideration. So same question, why do you say it selectively ignores people it doesn't want to defend?
However, I also don't think sane people would disagree with you on the above. The article points to lots of examples where differences of opinion, which won't result in death, are being prosecuted.
However, I also don't think sane people would disagree with you on the above. The article points to lots of examples where differences of opinion, which won't result in death, are being prosecuted.
And I agree with you on Connelly, full-heartedly. But so does the article, btw - it explicitly says so, if you haven't read it due to the pay wall.
So let's agree on Connelly and consider the other examples.
And I agree with you on Connelly, full-heartedly. But so does the article, btw - it explicitly says so, if you haven't read it due to the pay wall.
So let's agree on Connelly and consider the other examples.
Losing Wirtz is another signal of falling further behind the European elite as a club. We even have to grossly overpay Tah just to get him to stop waiting for Barca.
Losing Wirtz is another signal of falling further behind the European elite as a club. We even have to grossly overpay Tah just to get him to stop waiting for Barca.
You don't need to have been targeted by a hate mob to be able to raise questions about freedom of speech. Why so quasi-elitist?
The examples in the article seem likely overreach, of the kind that alienates people and reduces trust in law enforcement. Don't ignore them.
You don't need to have been targeted by a hate mob to be able to raise questions about freedom of speech. Why so quasi-elitist?
The examples in the article seem likely overreach, of the kind that alienates people and reduces trust in law enforcement. Don't ignore them.