What is your point? You agree people have the right to act on their beliefs to effect democratic change, right? Surely that includes making up their own minds about information.

▲

bpodgursky 3 hours ago | parent [-]

We should and should cut out sources of foreign funding and support, and prosecute and publicize genuine foreign agents, while allowing people to exercise their political rights.

▲

otterley 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Why? Do you believe free speech is a right only Americans should have? Or do you believe that people shouldn’t be free to evaluate competing points of view and decide for themselves?

	▲	lazide 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This seems like a variant of anti-self defense logic. ‘The other guy has a right to beat you in the face with a bat, as much as you have a right to take it’. Hint: bussing in out of towners to astro-turf ‘town discussions’ is also seen as shitty. A quick way to test this kind of thing is, if the roles were reversed, would they still be okay with it? I guarantee you that China and Russia would absolutely not be okay with the US doing the same thing in their territory.
	▲	bpodgursky 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I believe I live in the real world, where we have to figure out how to integrate abstract principles in a manner that allows our survival as a civilization. Reciprocity is a pretty straightforward strategy — we can allow uninhibited competing points of view from countries that themselves allow unlimited speech internally.