Thaths wrote: > Your precise wording was: "and outrageous if they are not and allowed > to write". The outrage in that statement seems to be directed equally > at the falsity (if the report was false) and at the journalist being > "allowed to write".
The "allowed to write" was directed at us, the receivers, not the powers that be. I believe that some percentage of people who read such articles are gullible enough to believe it. Freedom of speech is abused big time to such a point that it has become a joke. > Naomi Klein is a fairly respected writer among the Left in the US. And > the article you referred to was an opinion piece. Even if Naomi's > opinion was misled or wrong (one cannot have false opinions, merely > wrong-headed ones), I think she deserves being "allowed to write". Of course she should be allowed to write. Of course it was an opinion piece. It may have some truth in it. But it is misleading and the gullible believe it to be the truth. If they believe in the "rapture", this is much more believable.
