Jackson Jambalaya

Tried to listen to it but just couldn't stand to hear that man talking.

Dat damn he is grungy.

Imagine needing to use Russel Brand as the mouthpiece of your ideology.

Have you ever heard of the great Noam Chomsky?

I'd rather listen to "Fascist Wannabees And Their Cranks Who Whatabout For Them"

"Russell Brand and respected journalist Matt Taibii..."

It's Taibbi and that sentence would have been just as accurate if you had written, "Respected journalist Russell Brand and Matt Taibbi..."

Trump isn't and has never been "censored." That certain outlets cover him differently than others isn't "censorship." That most cover him with a bias - some too critically/harshly, some not critically/harshly enough, but both with a bias - doesn't equate to censorship. Even if all outlets covered him too harshly, that still wouldn't be _censorship_.

For Trump's purposes, the negative coverage from CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, etc. do him more good than Fox's business-decision fawning over him. The new management at CNN, perhaps being better businesspeople than their predecessors, seem to be well aware of the business aspect. See the "conscious decoupling" of Brian "Constanza" Stelter, along with the previous Cuomo kick-to-the-curb, with promises of more to come.

"I'd rather listen to "Fascist Wannabees And Their Cranks Who Whatabout For Them"

You can.
Just tune into WAPT.

If you're lucky, you might see two minutes of local news and
fifteen minutes of rehashed ABC national/international crap.

@6:19 All social media of note (Twitter, Instagram & Facebook) banned Trump. To say he hasn’t been censored is ridiculous.

MSM and their followers might cop to contextualizing Trump. And MSM and its fans less likely would admit to just outright lying about Trump. But they’d never say they had censored Trump.

@6:19, What distinction do you draw with your use of sneer quotes and the more idiotic sneer underscores? Is there some important difference between “censored” and “censorship” and _censorship_ and plain old censorship or being censored? I merely ask.

Why can’t Brand put on a coat and tie and cut his hair like Brian Stelter or Andrew Cuomo or Brian Williams or Dan Rather? If he’d only do that, then we could believe what he says.

Trump is the embodiment of the axiom….All publicity is GOOD publicity! He is the lead story on the news every night. He is the most famous man on Earth. He is a self aggrandizing egotist who wants to be back in the White House. FDR said that the best thing a politician can have is a bad enemy and the media gives Trump a megaphone every day. They hate him and he loves them and everybody profits!!!

Why should he? He has six million subscribers on YouTube. He consistently outdraws the news shows and “personalities” on YouTube.

@6:55
Mr Ballen has 6.55 million.
Mr Ballen is war veteran and also needs a hair cut.
However, he never looks strung out and greasy. He is also raising a family.
Mr Ballen also avoids politics, so I guess it is an apples and oranges comparison.

Kingfish once again proves that he is an absolute midwit. It only costs about USD $10,000 to buy 6 million third world subscribers to inflate your status as an “influencer” online. Perhaps that’s what you need to do with your pathetic YouTube channel.

"'censorship' and _censorship_ and plain old censorship or being censored? I merely ask."

They aren't "sneer quotes." The difference is that just because one group labels something as "censorship" - which the accusers tend to generally describe as a 1st Amendment violative suppression of ideas - doesn't make it _censorship_. No level of US-based government passed any law related to any of it, so the 1st Amendment isn't applicable. No one has a "right" to a social media account. Specifically in the case of Trump's personal ban, he was banned for repeated violations of specific content policies (TOS violations) but the same ideas were readily posted by others, as were links to other sources of the ideas, so even the charge of "censorship" is lacking basis. The same companies ban people every day under the same circumstances. One can post daily expletive-laden rants about why they hate broccoli, but are at substantial and plainly-stated risk of ban if they post even one slur-filed rant about, or calling for violence against, broccoli farmers, pickers, processors, or sellers. In general terms, you are generally free to express, support, disparage, or attack ideas and call on others to do the same, but you are prohibited from extreme disparaging or attacking people or calling on others to do so. Pretty much like street corners or town squares across the US.

Importantly in the case of Trump, he wanted to get banned for political/personal gain. He had numerous warnings from these private companies and flouted them. Were the companies consistent in the application of such terms of service? No, but that is hypocrisy not a component of _censorship_. Did some at the companies delight in Trump being banned because of their personal feelings toward him? Yes, but that is (after-the-fact) hypocrisy, not a component of _censorship_.

Freedom of Speech gives you the right to lie,to say foolish things and even speak hatefully about our Nation and it's citizens. You can even defend our Nations known enemies as long as you don't act to aid them against us.
It does have other legal limitations including inciting riots or yelling fire in a crowded venue when none exists, defamation and libel and enticing others to do murderor commit a crime or do physical harm to another on your behalf.
Some of you seem to have zero understanding that laws are necessary for a society to not fall into chaos and crime or that rights you deny others can be denied to you!