Ofcom's statutory responsibility is not to say "you're kind of a dick for saying that": it's to order you not to say that or face punishment.

Punishment means fines. Fines means the threat of force. Force means abduction and false imprisonment. For the crime of sitting on a couch and having a conversation.

Just what the hell is freedom of speech if it isn't freedom from these kinds of 'consequences'?

@gorillaman @MilkmanDan

Please explain to me exactly what horrible consequences Jimmy Carr suffered.

Ofcom upheld a complaint against him. That's it.

How was he "assailed with the force of the state"? They didn't even fine him.

There's a big fucking difference between saying "you can't say that" and saying "you're kind of a dick for saying that".

Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

Heh, I made a similar argument years ago to a friend of mine but I wasn't so harsh on the common people.

I don't think it is so much that people are sheep as it is the fact that the system is designed to keep people as preoccupied as possible with their own survival so that they simply can't afford to be truly political activists.

Think about it--in the U.S. you can be legally fired from your job, for example, for expressing political opinions your boss disagrees with. It isn't a freedom of speech issue because freedom of speech only prevents the government from censoring your speech--not private business. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a political opinion. When someone wears an ostensibly "offensive" Halloween outfit and pictures of it show up on the Internet, they can be fired without having any kind of recourse.

Now you add on top of that how the middle class has been eroded away. A lot of families need dual incomes just to survive. That means you also need to pay for childcare if you have kids. Prices have increased but wages haven't kept pace. Now add debts on top of all this, whether it be from college loans, credit cards, car payments, mortgages, or whatever.

What you get from all this is a society where, as bad as things are in Washington, it's not bad enough for people to risk their already precarious circumstances by boycotting work to attend protests or engaging in some other form of extreme activism that would probably be required to effect real changes. A lot of people are one bad circumstance away from, if not bankruptcy, then at least a drastic lifestyle shift where they'll lose most of their personal belongings and possibly dreams (like having their kids go to college).

So things plod along pretty much the way they always have, with those in power continuing to consolidate that power and see how far they can push it. Barring college students with pretty much nothing to lose (they have both the free time and probably economic freedom to protest and engage in political activism), the best most people can do is gripe about things on the Internet.

@enoch

No, no, no, man, I would never downvote something because the speaker held an opinion about a certain topic that I disagreed with. Rather, I downvoted this because the subtext of the video is clear: you don't have to listen to what SJWs say because they are self-important blowhards who were coddled as children. Doesn't matter what the argument is that they are proposing. They are SJWs and therefore their ideas cannot be worth listening to.

And more specifically, if you pay attention to the images he is showing as he narrates his stance: you don't have to listen to what Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, etc. say about games (he's showing their pictures while decrying SJWs).

This is classic GamerGate tactics. Rather than actually debate the issues, which are the representation (or lack thereof) of women and other minorities in video games, he wants to dismiss the argument out of hand. You see it all the time in GamerGate supporter comments:

"Anita is a con artist looking to scam Kickstarter supporters out of their money."
"Anita is the feminist equivalent of a TV evangelist."
"Anita has hijacked feminism."
"Anita isn't even a real feminist."
"Anita's not really a gamer."

And so on.

They are desperate to get people to dismiss Anita's criticisms out of hand, mostly because even the most ardent haters can't deny there are problems with the representation of women and other minorities in ALL media, some of which are specific to video games.

It's all a big distraction from the issues. So what if everything GamerGate supporters allege is actually true? So what if she were stealing kickstarter money? So what if she is pushing some kind of feminist agenda in games? So what if she has appointed herself as a spokeperson for feminism?

Even if it were all true, the only important question is whether her arguments about the representation of women in games are valid and well-founded.

So, I downvoted this because essentially the author is advocating judging arguments on the basis of the arguer's reputation (for example, as an SJW) rather than on the merits of the argument itself. I see it as more blatant GamerGate propoganda trying to justify attacking the argument makers rather than dealing with the argument itself. Fuck that noise.

SJW is such a useless label at this point. It is now used purely as a cop out these days, a pejorative that supposedly gives you a free pass to ignore what someone is saying because clearly they are an coddled idiot (otherwise they wouldn't be an SJW).

I absolutely agree with you that justice, freedom of speech, freedom of dissent, etc. are important. And it is troubling that people in recent days are abusing the system to shut down dissenters. But this is the world we live in now and it really only reflects the political situation in Washington that has been going on nearly a decade now--lines drawn in the sand and ideas shouted down merely because they were spoken by someone on the wrong side of the line. I guess it isn't surprising that public debate is mirroring what we've been seeing in the capitol, only with the anonymity of the Internet allowing people to take it to a whole new level with doxxing, swatting, etc.

@SDGundamX

it is all good mate.
you vote however you wish,for whatever reasons you deem pertinent.

i do not identify so strongly with a video that it somehow represents me,or everything i stand for,and i have no issue if someone disagrees.though i always do respect when someone states WHY they downvoted.

which you did,and mad respect my man.

as i stated earlier i was fairly ignorant to a lot of this new flavor of social justice warrior.gamergate included.in fact,i still do find gamergate really that important in the larger context,though i am sure there are gamers who would disagree with me.

i found this video interesting in that it was addressing how the more radical and extreme elements were attempting to hijack public spaces by controlling language,and therefore dominate the conversation.

since i was not familiar with this particular youtubers stance on gamergate,nor followed his videos,i harbored zero bias on his conclusions.

in my opinion,this mans stance or political leanings in regards to gamergate is not enough of a valid reason to dismiss what he is laying down in this video.

what you are suggesting (and if i am reading your position wrong,please let me know),is that because this youtuber held a certain position on a related subject,devalues and dismisses his position on radical social justice warriors.

a good analogy is me pointing to the sky and stating "the sky is blue" and having my statement dismissed because you may disagree with my politics,religion or philosophy.

but that would not make my statement any less true.

i agree with you that it does not matter of someone is a narcissist or a special snowflake.it is the argument that matters.the IDEAS that should be examined for their veracity and clarity.

and yes,this youtuber makes certain assumptions that are not only irrelevant but extremely biased.

which brings me back to my main point.
freedom of speech and how these radicals attempt to impose their own selective bias by controlling the language we use to express ourselves and those very ideas that you and i find to important.

so while the radical right attempts to legislate morality and impose THEIR own narrow and subjective understandings on all of us.

the radical left is attempting to silence dissent and dialogue by controlling language by using this weird orwellian doublethink.

"zero tolerance for the intolerant" almost every college campus has something similar to this all over campus.

now THAT phrase is a brilliant example of orwellian doublethink.
definition of doublethink:The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

so my main point is in regards to freedom of speech and how the radical end of these social justice warriors are threatening that most basic and vital right.

did i get my point across?
well,the jury is still out,but i hope that at least i got a few people thinking and giving this situation a bit more scrutiny.

i am also attempting to address this phenom of binary thinking.
that because i post a video that criticizes the more radical elements of social justice warriors.this automatically translates to me being "anti-social justice warriors".

my recent posts on this matter have confused and troubled some sifters.because they had a certain mental image of who i was and because they may identify as a social justice warrior,my posts were offensive to them,and confusing.

now thankfully @Jinx spoke up and inquired about my reasons,because it appeared to him that i was behaving out of character.

but i am not.
i am,and always have been,about freedom,equality,fairness and justice.i apply that metric as evenly as i humanly can ( i make mistakes,of course).

bad ideas MUST be challenged and how this new batch of social justice warriors are behaving in order to further their agenda is a bad fucking idea.

does this mean trash ALL people who are socially conscious and wish to create a better world by fighting injustice,racism and bigotry?

of COURSE not!
but i do blame those well-intentioned people for not standing up this new form of bully groupthink.just because someone identifies as a social justice warrior does not mean that they get a free pass just for being part of a group.

so just like i blame the "good" cops who stand by and allow the "bad" cops to break the law,abuse their authority and behave like fascists with impunity.they are just as responsible as those cops who cross the line.

so while the intentions may be good,the execution is a horrible lovecraftian nightmare,with far reaching implications that affect us all and can be easily abused.

freedom of speech is good.
disagreement is healthy.
we cannot be so allergic to conflict that we shut down the conversation,and all reside in our own little echo chambers where everybody is agreeing and nobody is questioning.

as a society there is grave danger in that practice.

and that is really what i am talking about.
thanks for commenting my man.
as you may have figured out.this is a fairly important subject to me.
stay awesome!

@Jinx

hey thanks for keeping this conversation going and not just making assumptions and allowing us both to come to a better understanding.

though i am not really surprised,i am gladdened.

in my opinion,i think this situation may be a problem with indentifying with labels and maybe putting too much weight on them to convey complicated and complex human interactions.

i would call myself a social justice warrior,but i would never identify as those who behave is the extremists do.but to imply that the responsibility is on ME,or any other critic,to redefine these radical social justice warriors as somehow not being representative of the majority,is a false dynamic,because that is how they define themselves.

basically the "No true scotsman" fallacy.which is employed ad-nauseum by these extremists.that somehow if you do not adhere to their radical agenda you are somehow not qualified to label yourself:feminist,anarchist (this has been directed at me),socialist, etc etc.

this is just a silly and binary way of breaking down peoples complex human perceptions and understandings to fit a narrow,and restrictive narrative,in order to achieve an agenda.

so while we all viewed GW bush's "if you're not with us,you're against us",as an inane and utterly stupid statement.how come there is little push back when the EXACT same tactic is used to silence someone who may not be 100% on board with a certain agenda?

does me posting this video automatically translate to me being "anti-social justice warrior"?

of course not! that is just silly,but in todays climate that is exactly how some people view complex situations,and it HAS to stop!

you brought up police.
good.
lets use that as an example.
the fact the americas militarized and dysfunctional police force has accounted for more police shootings than soldiers have died in iraq.do we REALLY need to be told that it is not ALL cops.

of course not.again,that is silly but it DOES mean that maybe there is a problem within the institution that needs to be addressed.

here is a perfect case for social justice warriors to bring this corruption and rot to the surface,and here we have black lives matter.which is receiving mixed coverage in the media,but they have gotten people talking and even some incremental reforms in the woks AND,just recently..6 cops fired from a cleveland precinct for shooting civilians.this is where social justice warriors are not only necessary but vital!

but what if.....

those cops who were feeling threatened,or intimidated by the criticism and examination of their institution coming from black lives matters decided to use a tactic right out of these extremists playbook?

maybe some doxxing?
exposing personal information about the protesters?
how about a few false accusations of rape?
maybe personal harassing calls to friends and family members of the black lives matter movement?
how about some false charges of harassment and sexual discrimination?

that would effectively shut down the black lives matter movement within weeks,and how would we respond to that kind of underhanded tactics?

we would be outraged.
we would be furious at the absolute abuse of power.a power bestowed by the state.

and our outrage would be justified.

do you see where i am coming from here?

in the example i have given,which may or not be the best analogy.we can easily see the abuse of power as a form of bullying to get a group that is a dissenting ideology..to shut..the fuck..up.

freedom of speech is NOT just speech you or i agree with,or happen to support,but it also speech that we may dislike,disagree and even find offensive.

but by allowing those we dislike or disagree to say their piece,allows us and everybody else to examine,discern and ultimately discard as ridiculous.or,converesly,find some merit that was previously hidden from us,due to our lack of knowledge or understanding.

i realize i am reiterating my previous point,but i think it is so very important.

free speech allows the free flow of ideas and dialogue and allows good ideas to be absorbed into the body politic and the bad ones discarded into the trash bin.

but there MUST be the allowance of the free flow of thought!

so when i post a video such as this i am not ridiculing actual socially conscious people.i am exposing bad ideas,supported by narrow minded people who wish to impose THEIR sense of how a society should be and attempt to circumvent the very slow process of discussion,argument and debate by hijacking the conversation and shutting down all dissent and disagreement with the most fascist tactics possible.

up until a month ago i was fairly ignorant to things like gamergate and whatnot.i thought i had a pretty fair understanding of what a social justice warrior was,and even included myself as one.

but then,quite by accident,i fell upon a few stories that highly disturbed me.one ,in particular was the case of greg allen elliot who was being criminally prosecuted for harassment on twitter.

now the case was finally resolved,and elliot was found not guilty.
so hooray for justice right?
free speech won in the end right?
or did it...did elliot actually win?
i am not so sure.

you see.
he was a web designer.
and once he was charged 3 years ago,he was banned from any internet use.so effectively he was jobless.
on top of that his defense cost 100k.
sounds like a loss to me.

now let us examine stephanie guthrie.a prominent toronto feminist and tedtalk speaker:
1.she made the accusation of harassment and brought the charges.
2.even though this all started with a man who created a game where anita sarkesians faced was punched,and was the supposed imetus for all this fuss,guthrie never laid charges against the creator of the game.though she did,along with her followers harassed and bullied this man until he closed down his account.so chock one up for feminism? i guess?
4.what guthrie found so reprehensible about elliot was that he had the audacity to question guthries rage and called for a calm interaction.(mainly because there are literally 100's of face-punching games).
5.guthrie and her followers found this call for calm offensive and doxxed elliot and proceeded to harass his employer,his family and ffirends.
6.elliot lost his job.his employer could not handle the harassment.so feminist win again? i guess?
7.when guthrie blocked elliot on twitter she continued to publicly accuse him of misogyny,bigot and even a pedophile.
8.she then brought accusations against elliot for criminal harassment,and that she "felt" harassed.
9.guthrie has paid ZERO for her accusations.she has suffered no accountability nor responsibility.

now the court case is over,and elliot has been vindicated and free speech is still in place for today.

but lets look at the bigger picture.
and let us imagine how easily this situation could be abused.
can we really look at guthrie vs elliot as ANY form of justice? or is it MORE liekly that guthrie was abusing a court system to punish a man she happened to disagree with?with ZERO consequences.

now maybe you agree with guthrie.
maybe you are one of those people that believe in your heart that words are weapons and people should be held accountable for those words.they should be stripped of wealth,work and home..they should be punished.

ok.
thats fine.
maybe you agree because it is a matter you support?
a racist pig loses a job for saying racists things.
or a bigot gets kicked out of his apartment for being a bigoted asshole.

but how about this..
hypothetically:
a devout chritian woman is protesting an abortion clinic with her children in tow.

and lets say a pro-choice atheist comes over to her and starts to berate her i front of her children.ridiculing her for her beliefs and saying jesus was a zombie.that she is a horrible person for believing in such a tyrannical deity,that this so-called all-loving entity punishes all no-believers in a lake of fire for all eternity.that as a mother,teaching her children to worship such a god is tantamount to child abuse.berating her so badly that her children begin to cry?

now what if that interaction was filmed?
then posted to youtube?
what if a "social justice warrior" of the religious flavor decided that berating person needed to pay for his words?
what if that person got doxxed?
and the end result was he loses his job (because corporations are notoriously controversy allergic),and maybe his landlord is notified and he is kicked out of his apartment?

would you be ok with all that?
because that is the EXACT same metric that radical social justice warriors use!

and what about false accusations?
you dont even have to be actually offended and /or harassed,you just have to accuse and the rest takes care of itself.

are you ok with that kind of creative abuse?

so when i bring things like this to the forefront and attempt to expose the underlying idiocy.what i just wrote is where i am coming from.

and yes.these radicals and their underhanded tactics need to be exposed and all the attention brought to them the better.

why? because what and how they are behaving is anti-democracy anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

and i am all for debating specific issues,and will gladly do so..with glee,but i will not and cannot respect what the radical elements are doing to an otherwise worthy cause.

and YOU should be calling them out as well.

i know this is long and i probably lost the plot somewhere,but this is very important,becuase it threatens all of us and if we simply ignore these nimrods they will just become even more entrenched,self-righteous and arrogant in their own little bubble worlds.

that bubble needs to be popped,and soon.

anyways.thanks for hanging (if you made it this far)
there will be danishes and punch in the lobby!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, though, if I think somethings sucks or I dislike it, it's absolutely my right to say so. That is not censorship, it's the opposite.

Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

There's a difference between public and private speech. If you're talking to someone you know, well, by definition you know them and you know where to draw the line. My friends throw all kinds of anti-Irish racist slurs at me that I would take serious offence at coming from someone else.

As for the idea that PC "hides" racism/sexism/homophobia, fantastic! The more it's hidden away, the less people are exposed to it, until it becomes more and more socially unacceptable to be a racist, sexist, homophobic asshole.

Again re the opera: first, it was Perth not Sydney, and second, I agree it's stupid. But it was the opera companies stupid decision to make. No-one forced them to do this.

Here's the importance point: PC is not censorship. Censorship is saying you CAN'T say this, PC is saying "maybe you SHOULDN'T".

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. If someone says something racist or sexist or whatever, I have the right to express my opinion that they shouldn't have said those things. If that's PC, so be it.

There is absolutely no suppression.
It's not analogous to 'banning books', it's more like not checking out and reading certain books, or certain authors. No author has the right to force their 'work' on others. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
You simply don't have a right to 'be acknowledged'. That is not a right. EDIT: Freedom of speech is not the freedom to force others to listen.
You absolutely SHOULD be able to remove someone from your personal existence. As you said, there are even laws to do it in real life, which actually effects the actions of the other party, unlike this, which is more like blocking their phone number and emails at best. Do you think it should not be possible to block phone calls and emails?
How do you find that offensive? Why do you feel that a person's right to force their views on another person outweighs that other person's right to NOT have a person's views forced on them?
Again, NO ONE IS SILENCED. How do you not get that? To censor, you must hide the work from OTHERS, not simply not look at it.
I clearly explained the reasons I asked for it, you just don't get it for some reason.
The behavior you described is exactly what was happening, but was done in such a way that the moderators said it didn't rise to the level of banning or even hobbling them (although I still can't understand how, since at least one of them was repeatedly using the N word, others using the C word to describe any woman, others making nasty personal insults, etc.) Since ban and hobble weren't happening (now ban, THAT's censorship...but for cause), something else was needed, this was it.

1 - Well let me deconstruct that a bit. Presumably you rely on news, how can you rely on any of it to be trustworthy? Several ways obviously, I would say the main are (A) Ownership, (B) Reputation and (C) Funding.

A - Ownership - RT (and it's web of shadowy news sites pretending to be local) are owned by the Kremlin or clearly Kremlin linked oligarchs. Their incentives should be clear, promote the Putin narrative. When all independent TV news has been shuttered within Russia or taken over, you would expect these outfits to be heavily biased towards propaganda. I would similarly have to be suspect of outfits like Voice of America (US government funded). Corporate news sources have their own incentives. I happen to like the Economist but I'm mindful of its ownership involving the Rothschild family and Eric Schmidt (Google) being on the board for example. After all, every news outfit is owned by someone.

B - Reputation - This is the main one to me. You can say what you will about Western media, but there is a cultural expectation among its people and its reporters of the freedom to report newsworthy stories. There are obviously biases and those form part of the news source's reputation. We know TV news tend to be short on fact and sensationalist. Equally, we know Fox News to be right wing. We inevitably find these things out because no matter how much a news owner might want to control its message, freedom of speech sees the reputation leak out. We have reports (regarding Fox for example) that memos go out to use specific language like "Climategate" or we have controversies such as when photos of NYT reporters were photoshopped with yellow teeth.

C - Funding - Advertising vs Subscription, but that's not really relevant here.

My main point is, relying on Putin directly or any of his web of 'news' to get information about Russia or America is particularly silly. We know their ownership, reputation and thereby incentives. Or any state backed news. For corporate news, ultimately any bias from ownership, reputation or say government influence will leak out.

2 - I don't see him as any more politically effective or intelligent than necessarily any other major leader. If I've expressed anything here it should be that what Putin says is just as calculated and manipulative as any politician. Just because it has a veneer of 'speaking truth to power' or recounts some truths does not mean it is true in its entirety. Bluster and waging wars is politically popular in Russia, he is simply playing to a different audience. I would say any notion that he is more 'objective' is farcical. After all the kind of imperialism that he decries of America is the exact kind he's engaged in in Ukraine and now Syria!

Would you feel more comfortable if he wore a white hood? Maybe talk about 'gang lifestyle'?
I prefer my racists in white hoods and displaying swastikas, so I don't have to wade through subtext to id them. Open racism is stupid but at least honest. I despise political correctness and its ability to sugarcoat hatred. I'd rather engage a Neo-Nazi or white pride, god-hates-fags biblethumper than a Rick Santorum or Bill O'Reilly who are too much of a coward to say what they believe because they know how the broad public reacts.
The notion of not publicly voicing those idiotic, inhuman opinions because its offensive is more offensive to me than the opinion itself. I'd like to know if you're an idiot.
I believe in freedom of speech, even if that proves you're a terrible idiot. You have a right to be.

And now wake me up from that strange dream where I defend @lantern53.

Um, Yes, it is a right.
It certainly is my right, and to all that claim that right, it's their right not to be under surveillance of any kind.

"Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. Privacy underpins human dignity and other key values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights issues of the modern age. "
-- http://gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html

The PC Police doesn't have an issue with racism. They have an issue with everything! absolutely EVERYTHING, because they're professional victims who want to go through life without ever feeling offended. But of course, their victimization has to fit their own particular vision of the world, otherwise, it's offensive as well, and must be destroyed/silenced!

We all saw the "Je Suis Charlie" cases. I actually consider myself an actual "Je Suis Charlie" (for whatever that means) because I think freedom of speech is absolute, and comedy included. But there was a ton of little idiots, part of the PC police who managed to plaster "Je Suis Charlie" all over their facebooks, and then were condeming people over other "jokes".

These people, are stupid. Period.

The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back
The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back

So the FCC won't let me be
They want to stack the deck for the ISPs
but we've got a couple of tricks up our sleeves
It's far too important to leave to police
it could lead to the streets
a breach of the peace
and even decrease our freedom of speech
there's never been a bigger reason to read up
and see what's agreed 'cause of greed for the green and deceit
The greener the leaf, the sweeter the tree
the quicker they'll chop it down and leave nothing but tree stumps; debris
the damage is done, no refund received
see, the thing about net neutrality
is unless you get huge salaries
? the paramedic won't rescue casualties
' til they've seen to the rich next dude's allergies
they'll prioritise cash over content
wanna send one bit? That's one cent
What nonsense, man it's scaring me
a planet of plenty's selling scarcity
Innovation paved the way
Now invaders are paying to take it away
but they ain't gonna make it today
! Letting that happen's a major mistake
If Lessig was rapping he'd tell you the same
LETTING THAT HAPPEN'S A MAJOR MISTAKE
Tim Berners Lee baked us a cake
and they've taken the cherry.. AND THE CAKE
discrimination is happening today
to blacks and to gays and to packets of data
though ethically they're exactly the same
so Oi, we're not gonna stand 4 it m8

U WOT?
THE FOK U SAYIN BRUV?
U WOT M8??????
! THE FOK U SAYIN BRUV
U WOT?
FAK OFF U ARSEHOLE!

The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back
The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back

I'm from the place John Oliver came from
but no matter where you live you should be singing the same song
at long last, I'm putting Comcast on blast
'cause they never learn their lesson like they're in the wrong class
well I'm the professor and I'm setting you with one task
Get them knocked back like a shot glass
Straight in front of me's a cable company
The way they're behaving's unbelievable
Comcast is in league with the devil
and it's pissing me off, I'm not even American
! Take a peek, see from the evidence
Netflix had to pay a fee to get better links
it's a shakedown, communication breakdown
There's a bully in the playground
I had enough of that at school, won't lay down
lay a finger on me, you'll be laid out
You'll be laid out
You'll be laid ou
You'll be laid out
You'll be laid out
lay a finger on me, you'll be laid out

The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back
The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back

Taking it back, we're taking it back
We're taking it, we're taking back

That's kind of a silly thing to say.
Do you really think they could say anything even if they wanted to?

They have no choice but to return respect, even when it's not given in return. It's their Royalty. And in cultures that are so closely ruled by the system, no one would ever dare speak up against them. (out of fear)
You never speak out against those who rule you. Speaking up against the Saudi Royalty would mean instant death.


Saudi Prince Khaled Bin Farhan Al-Saud, who spoke to RT from Dusseldorf, Germany, confirmed reports of increased prosecution of anti-government activists and said that it’s exactly what forced him to defect from his family. He accused the monarchy of corruption and silencing all voices of dissent and explained how the Saudi mechanism for suppression functioned.

“There is no independent judiciary, as both police and the prosecutor’s office are accountable to the Interior Ministry. This ministry’s officials investigate ‘crimes’ (they call them crimes), related to freedom of speech. So they fabricate evidence, don’t allow people to have attorneys”, the prince told RT Arabic. “Even if a court rules to release such a ‘criminal’, the Ministry of Interior keeps him in prison, even though there is a court order to release him. There have even been killings! Killings! And as for the external opposition, Saudi intelligence forces find these people abroad! There is no safety inside or outside the country.”
http://rt.com/news/saudi-arabia-opposition-prince-374/