what happen to free speech ... in America...
are we living Under a dictators rules here ...
This is sad... that some can not handle the truth....

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/03/journalist-max-blumenthals-d-c-arrest-exposes-media-hypocrisy-on-human-rights/?fbclid=IwAR1VdXBs428-Et0z8vAPWgNfxhVccznOdXpHQqQbcjdnYG53lrbf2CRV5pc

Lebron James should give them some "woke" lessons! Even he is so woke that he only believes in Chinese slavery.

I don't really understand what the article has to do with denying "free speech."

The complaint (from the article) seems to be that the journalists personal story wasn't promulgated by "MSM" news outlets.

Are you under the impression "free speech" or the first amendment means everyone is guaranteed a desired audience for their speech?


Yes. If the dictators name was "bureaucracy."


I don't see that there is a lot of "truth" in the article.

I mean "charging him with simple assault for his attempt to deliver food to the besieged Venezuelan embassy..."
What has that to do with reporting or free speech?
If a reporter runs over his wife with a lawnmower and the police arrest him, is that suppressing "free speech" because he's a journalist?

What exactly happened when he attempted "to deliver food" to the embassy?
Did he show up in a Domino's delivery car and say "pardon me, I need to get to the embassy and deliver this pizza" and they said "no! We have a blockade!" and he said "m'kay" and turned around to leave and they yelled "assault!" and arrested him?

Or did he have a box of food and rush into a police pile up like a linebacker before doing ninja double flips over the gate throwing cans of food at the police like ninja stars?

The article isn't clear on that.

Only that he attempted to deliver food, somehow got charged with simple assault, was eventually arrested on that charge, and held for 36 hours without access to a lawyer.

From the article:
"In fact, the warrant against Blumenthal was months old, and apparently initially rejected."
So what if it was months old? Does that invalidate it?
What does "apparently" mean here? By whom was it initially rejected or why?
The article doesn't explain that or offer any evidence whatsoever that this is true other than saying "in fact."

Then we get one side of the story:
"If the government had at least told me I had a warrant I could have voluntarily surrendered and appeared at my own arraignment…. Instead, the federal government essentially enlisted the D.C. police to SWAT me, ensuring that I would be subjected to an early morning raid and then languish in prison for days without even the ability to call an attorney."

For all I know the government tried to tell him he had a warrant, or did so when they first charged him, maybe he didn't check his mail or thought it was junk mail. What are the requirements for them to contact and inform? What evidence is there to show they didn't?
How was he arrested? Did the SWAT team kick in his door, throw in stun grenades, and swarm him? Did they serve the warrant similar to how they serve all warrants? Or was it different?
Earlier in the article they said denied him access to a lawyer for 36 hours. But in this telling it's become "languishing...for days..."

I wonder how many people understand that the police procedures they see on television shows or movies isn't real?
What are the laws?
The article doesn't mention that.

So basically, this "journalist" did something that got him charged with simple assault. The police executed the warrant on him and arrested him.
Everything else is mostly just poor manipulation of biased readers.


I find it more sad where people think they find "truth."

This is the kind of story that many of us do not consider "news" reporting but simply a personal story full of political opinion. This is why the media and so called "journalists" are considered biased and unworthy of reading their fictional "news".

Emmanuel Goldstein is writing the news these days. Quite sad...

It is an opinion piece, not news.
Also, the expression "can't handle the truth" comes from a movie villain.