Why Glenn Greenwald resigned

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

cen·sorship
/ˈsensərSHip/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.


what happen doesn't even meet how censorship is defined

1) no one suppressed him he was free to publish it no one stopped him

2) a private company is not required to run stories of any of its employees

3) being on Trucker Carlson show support claim 1 and 2

Detbuch who spoon feeds you your outrage ?

The only censorship I mentioned was editorial censorship.

From WAPO: In a lengthy note published on Substack, Greenwald said the publication refused to publish the piece, “in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom,” unless he removed “all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.”


The Intercept did not publish his article because it said he needed to support his claims with evidence. But he had a "contractual right of editorial freedom." So, because of an editorial disagreement, Greenwald's article was not published. Or, as Greenwald stated, it was "suppressed" which is a form of censorship as you defined it--"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The only censorship I mentioned was editorial censorship.

From WAPO: In a lengthy note published on Substack, Greenwald said the publication refused to publish the piece, “in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom,” unless he removed “all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.”


The Intercept did not publish his article because it said he needed to support his claims with evidence. But he had a "contractual right of editorial freedom." So, because of an editorial disagreement, Greenwald's article was not published. Or, as Greenwald stated, it was "suppressed" which is a form of censorship as you defined it--"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Bob Mueller feels the same way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Bob Mueller feels the same way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which way, Greenwald's, the Intercept's way, or one of your innuendo driven ways?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Bob Mueller feels the same way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They should have agreed to print the story, then a day earlier released their talking points about what he really said.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

They should have agreed to print the story, then a day earlier released their talking points about what he really said.

we’re christine beley fords accusations against kavanaugh, more credible than the charge of corruption against the biden’s?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device