[mslkmdf]

So your whole point is 'its okay to infringe on freedom of speech in the west because it happens in russia' ? Are you a retarded stalinist or what? Also pretending to have sources and then telling people to google it is just a hilarious way of showing people what a clown you are.

[trymas]

I am not saying it's okay to infringe freedom of speech.

I will speak in general of Russia's television networks (because in my country there are not only RT, but more), but they are blatantly using this term to spread to say whatever they want. But what if they say that oppression against occupied soviet countries didn't happen? [&][0]( original sources not in english). Their defence is of course 'freedom of speech'. But what if that 'freedom of speech' breaks laws (usually it's on the brink of the law)? What if their reporters are filming themselves near infamous rocket artillery launchers[1][2], launchers who are hitting civilians [3][4]?

I recommended googling to see 'two opinions' yourself and how they present themselves. Someone like RT will never say two different opinions and most importantly not even mention another opinion exists. How they will disgustingly disguise and create a "mist of lies" around some fact that they know they are wrong about it. E.g. clearly fake satellite pictures how russia managed to picture a fighter jet in the process of firing it's weapons into MH17 (that fighter jet is an infantry support jet, with 7km flight ceiling (or 5km loaded)) [5]

Russian information channels work very well, they just work with KGB and Goebbels strategies.

"Freedom of speech" is no more freedom of speech when it breaks laws or is blatant and utter photoshoped lie.

[&] It's the same that Deutche Welle would start showing documentaries that holocaust and concentration camps didn't happen, a huge insult to victim countries and people, not to say it would be break the law in many countries as well.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTR-Planeta

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KCzUCJzpig

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dZt60J2fNM

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLmk30tXuyk

[5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836245/Report-slams...

[mslkmdf]

> but they are blatantly using this term to spread to say whatever they want.

That's what pretty much all major western media outlets do as well.

> Their defence is of course 'freedom of speech'. But what if that 'freedom of speech' breaks laws (usually it's on the brink of the law)?

Like what laws?

> What if their reporters are filming themselves near infamous rocket artillery launchers[1][2], launchers who are hitting civilians [3][4]?

Whats wrong with filming action? Seems like courage and dedication to me.

> But what if they say that oppression against occupied soviet countries didn't happen?

You don't realize how hilarious that is? You can find 100 equivalent western propaganda pieces for every one of RT's. I don't see people like you being against those media outlets.

> Someone like RT will never say two different opinions and most importantly not even mention another opinion exists.

Yes they will. They invite plenty of people for interviews that criticize Putin and Russia, and actually give them decently long time which Western media almost never do (like Noam Chomsky - youtube it).

> Russian information channels work very well, they just work with KGB and Goebbels strategies.

Not nearly as well as Western media channels. Russian propaganda is children's cartoons compared to Western propaganda.

> "Freedom of speech" is no more freedom of speech when it breaks laws or is blatant and utter photoshoped lie.

Funny how you only have a problem with this when its a particular party expressing views you happen to disagree with.