【左膠誤國】默克爾重創新聞自由 下令完全封鎖伊斯蘭移民負面報導
暴走的赫胥黎
142 回覆
150 Like
25 Dislike
原來係條反左膠反上腦嘅傻仔，唔怪得
睇清楚先啦
Fake news
好多開呢d極端post 既都係五毛底
2000年壹週刊
嘩呢單新聞都真係好早啊 我fact check咗實會好有用啦
嘩呢單新聞都真係好早啊 我fact check咗實會好有用啦
默克爾重創新聞自由
唔正確, 應該話
全球左膠重創新聞自由
唔信你地search下四月呢單新聞全球左膠大報大台有幾多報導
少數報導既都只係用罐頭AP一字不改
唔正確, 應該話
全球左膠重創新聞自由
唔信你地search下四月呢單新聞全球左膠大報大台有幾多報導
少數報導既都只係用罐頭AP一字不改
The "Beheading"
"We don't comment on this rumor," state prosecutor Nana Frombach said to Gatestone when asked about the beheading. All she was willing to acknowledge was that the child had suffered "severe neck injuries." When Gatestone said that §201a could not be applied to the video in question because it did not show anybody's face, she replied that this had "yet to be decided," and that the raid was based on an "initial suspicion." Gatestone then mentioned that Kordewiner, instead of uploading the video anonymously (which would have been easy for him to do), had uploaded it to his YouTube channel, along with his full name and address, rendering the raid's stated goal of "finding evidence" not merely disproportionate but entirely unnecessary. Frombach said that she was not allowed to "comment on details of an ongoing investigation," but that she could "guarantee" that the search warrant had been "approved by a judge."
How can any journalist, under such censorship, report the news? Would it be illegal to film the scene of a terrorist attack? Frombach said that she could "not tell" whether this would still be legal in today's Germany. "I can only judge specific cases, not ones that lie in the future," she said.
"We don't comment on this rumor," state prosecutor Nana Frombach said to Gatestone when asked about the beheading. All she was willing to acknowledge was that the child had suffered "severe neck injuries." When Gatestone said that §201a could not be applied to the video in question because it did not show anybody's face, she replied that this had "yet to be decided," and that the raid was based on an "initial suspicion." Gatestone then mentioned that Kordewiner, instead of uploading the video anonymously (which would have been easy for him to do), had uploaded it to his YouTube channel, along with his full name and address, rendering the raid's stated goal of "finding evidence" not merely disproportionate but entirely unnecessary. Frombach said that she was not allowed to "comment on details of an ongoing investigation," but that she could "guarantee" that the search warrant had been "approved by a judge."
How can any journalist, under such censorship, report the news? Would it be illegal to film the scene of a terrorist attack? Frombach said that she could "not tell" whether this would still be legal in today's Germany. "I can only judge specific cases, not ones that lie in the future," she said.
18年來
香港傳媒噤若寒蟬
得大公報夠膽報道
你話恐唔恐佈？
香港傳媒噤若寒蟬
得大公報夠膽報道
你話恐唔恐佈？
連自由派都睇唔過眼左膠所作所為
The libertarian website Achse des Guten (Axis of the Good) was the first media outlet to report the raid. Two days later, the daily Hamburger Abendblatt wrote:
"Hamburg's state prosecutor rabidly prosecutes a blogger who has published pictures of the tragedy at Jungfernstieg... The raid was based on paragraph 201a, a law that the council of the press and journalist associations view as being problematic with regard to free reporting."
The Abendblatt criticized the "nebulous phrasing" of the law and the "even more nebulous interpretation by the state prosecutor," stating, "The law stipulates that no pictures of helpless persons may be taken. However, the cell phone footage does not show such persons."
The libertarian website Achse des Guten (Axis of the Good) was the first media outlet to report the raid. Two days later, the daily Hamburger Abendblatt wrote:
"Hamburg's state prosecutor rabidly prosecutes a blogger who has published pictures of the tragedy at Jungfernstieg... The raid was based on paragraph 201a, a law that the council of the press and journalist associations view as being problematic with regard to free reporting."
The Abendblatt criticized the "nebulous phrasing" of the law and the "even more nebulous interpretation by the state prosecutor," stating, "The law stipulates that no pictures of helpless persons may be taken. However, the cell phone footage does not show such persons."
Zerohedge 係唔係一個 creditable 的source 都幾爭議
人地問晒德國檢察官同MP結果你都唔信咁冇計
ZH今次只係quote國際人權組織調查報告
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12618/germany-press-freedom
估唔到我竟然有見到左膠對抗國際人權組織既一日
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12618/germany-press-freedom
估唔到我竟然有見到左膠對抗國際人權組織既一日
依然反駁唔到呢單新聞係fake news
最簡單 默克爾點樣牽涉其中
你自己個source都講“The office of the state prosecutor is under the authority of Hamburg's state government, a coalition of Social Democrats and the Green Party.”
默克爾係總理 點會介入地方事務？就算你堅持，你都要有證據
其次你依家quote呢段嘢點樣支持你個論點？
個prosecutor又無否認behead，佢係「唔評論」件事。咁又點係封鎖消息？
調查緊件事又唔係事必要向你透露資訊
就算你針對§201a 呢一點來講
你嘅source似乎明顯有誤
／In the meantime, the incriminated video has been deleted from all German websites and YouTube channels (although it can still be found on websites that are out of reach of the German authorities).／
但係事實上Youtube上Heinrich Kordewine條片一直都響度，日期依然顯示係4月12日上載
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lBv0RcPBtA
下面一大堆德文comment
似乎證明德國境內無封鎖啊
當然你可以話個檢查官解釋法律依據吞吞吐吐
但係咁同封鎖消息差好遠嘛？
最簡單 默克爾點樣牽涉其中
你自己個source都講“The office of the state prosecutor is under the authority of Hamburg's state government, a coalition of Social Democrats and the Green Party.”
默克爾係總理 點會介入地方事務？就算你堅持，你都要有證據
其次你依家quote呢段嘢點樣支持你個論點？
個prosecutor又無否認behead，佢係「唔評論」件事。咁又點係封鎖消息？
調查緊件事又唔係事必要向你透露資訊
就算你針對§201a 呢一點來講
你嘅source似乎明顯有誤
／In the meantime, the incriminated video has been deleted from all German websites and YouTube channels (although it can still be found on websites that are out of reach of the German authorities).／
但係事實上Youtube上Heinrich Kordewine條片一直都響度，日期依然顯示係4月12日上載
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lBv0RcPBtA
下面一大堆德文comment
似乎證明德國境內無封鎖啊
當然你可以話個檢查官解釋法律依據吞吞吐吐
但係咁同封鎖消息差好遠嘛？
你肯定呢個係「國際人權組織」
之前gatestone 畀人篤爆過散播流料
似係針對難民嘅組織多啲（當然你對待難民問題嘅立場係點就另一回事）
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/european-union-gag-order-on-revealing-muslim-terrorists-religion/
之前gatestone 畀人篤爆過散播流料
似係針對難民嘅組織多啲（當然你對待難民問題嘅立場係點就另一回事）
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/european-union-gag-order-on-revealing-muslim-terrorists-religion/
留意到樓主成日幫移民左膠講說話
我只係提供資訊
駁斥啲唔符合事實嘅立論
當然你可以話我偏頗
咁反對移民班人有足夠理據
令我駁唔到的話 我一樣會改立場
我之前都試過被人屌到投降
https://lihkg.com/thread/714500/page/1
btw外國還外國 香港還香港
如果你以為我支持新移民來港的話
咁你就錯
駁斥啲唔符合事實嘅立論
當然你可以話我偏頗
咁反對移民班人有足夠理據
令我駁唔到的話 我一樣會改立場
我之前都試過被人屌到投降
https://lihkg.com/thread/714500/page/1
btw外國還外國 香港還香港
如果你以為我支持新移民來港的話
咁你就錯
你唔信gatestone可以睇下德文原文(唔識德文請用google翻譯)
https://www.achgut.com/artikel/die_enthauptung_der_hamburger_justiz
多次引述多名左翼政客檢察官關於拉人單野言論
篇野出左街三個月
如果有老作"德國政府攪upload打格移民殺人片既反移民底網民, 又無視電視台播冇打格片"
你覺得比佢quote既多名左翼政客檢察官會唔出嚟澄清?
https://www.achgut.com/artikel/die_enthauptung_der_hamburger_justiz
多次引述多名左翼政客檢察官關於拉人單野言論
篇野出左街三個月
如果有老作"德國政府攪upload打格移民殺人片既反移民底網民, 又無視電視台播冇打格片"
你覺得比佢quote既多名左翼政客檢察官會唔出嚟澄清?
我無話gatestone響呢個case裡面講嘅嘢不實（因為我上網可以搜尋到嘅資料基本上都係直接／間接來自gatestone ，無從對比）
我只係質疑你用「國際人權組織」一詞去描述佢係咪恰當（尤其是考慮其往跡）
／又無視電視台播冇打格片／
Meanwhile, the German publication Welt online posted a video that shows close-up footage of the victim -- something that did not spur state prosecutors into action. The main difference between the two videos seems to be the verbal comment on the beheading in Daniel J's video.
我只係質疑你用「國際人權組織」一詞去描述佢係咪恰當（尤其是考慮其往跡）
／又無視電視台播冇打格片／
Meanwhile, the German publication Welt online posted a video that shows close-up footage of the victim -- something that did not spur state prosecutors into action. The main difference between the two videos seems to be the verbal comment on the beheading in Daniel J's video.
哦, 原來gatestone響呢個case裡面講既野唔係不實
咁兩個topic咁多個post幫gatestone潑污水既動機又係咩
咁兩個topic咁多個post幫gatestone潑污水既動機又係咩
/咁兩個topic咁多個post幫gatestone潑污水/
邊度有潑污水
如果大幅度引用gatestone = 潑污水
咁係我錯
邊度有潑污水
如果大幅度引用gatestone = 潑污水
咁係我錯