text: Now some Google officials have been sentenced to prison in Europe for allowing the posting of a video clip showing a boy with Down's syndrome being abused by a group of students. It was hardly what anyone would call graphic or violent footage but it was a good excuse for censorship that could not be left to go to waste.
  The group Vividown brought suit and the judge sentenced the Google officials to prison based on an alleged violation of the victim's privacy. Nota bene: There is no mention of any trial against the perpetrators. Clearly, no one is portraying them in a bad light.
  1 — The elites need to keep progressing toward total control of the Internet until they control it just as tightly as they do the "mainstream" press. Otherwise the masses may eventually break free and demand a say in the governments of their nations.
  2 — The only way illegal activity can continue unabated is by censoring the evidence — in this case, the video showing children harassing a handicapped boy. The real issue is the violation of the boy's rights and in a common-sense traditional world, the courts and press would be focusing on the perpetrators and demanding they be punished.
  But those days are gone. In the increasingly autocratic EU and in the individual governments of Europe, corruption abounds and officials are routinely getting away with misdemeanors and crimes. Those who take steps to expose them and bring them to justice are attacked in the media in subtle ways designed to make the unsuspecting public believe that telling the truth was somehow a criminal violation of their privacy rights. Thanks to distortions in the press, the issue becomes one of how whistleblowers violate people's "rights" by telling the truth about perpetrators and abusers of human rights. Attention is diverted away from the perpetrators and toward those who exposed them. Readers are gently persuaded to accept the notion that committing crimes or violating human rights is of little consequence, but that exposing a perpetrator is a criminal violation of privacy.
  Think about it. If this new policy of trying and punishing the ones who report crimes under color of "protecting the victim" and ignoring or downplaying the perpetrators is pursued to its logical end, anyone who reports on a crime in detail in the media, particularly by showing images of graphic crime scenes or battered victims, can be considered to have violated the rights of the victim and can be given jail time, thereby trivializing the actual crime itself and inevitably paving the way for increased criminality. At the very least, in a reversal of technological advances, the presentation of videotaped evidence against perpetrators of crimes and misdemeanors would not only be inadmissable (as is sometimes the case already), but in fact would be punishable in some cases by harsher penalties than the crimes it was attempting to expose!
  Thus, in order to protect high-ranking evil doers and dictatorial policies, the Internet as we know it is being attacked like never before! They can't afford to have you know the truth.
  Europe has long been a dictatorship — where the people now have almost no say in any of the lawmaking process or choice of lawmakers or judges — but sadly, few Europeans realize it. Most are under the influence of the sensational media which keep them dazzled by images of glamorous stars and athletes, cats rescued by firemen, "global climate crisis" and the latest cinematic achievements.
  We will see more and more of this censorship and down-dumbing as time goes on. The pretext is privacy, but the real issue is freedom of speech. The use of Down's syndrome as an excuse to censor is a new and creative one. Just wait. There will be thousands of such excuses and each one will seem "justified" to the uninitiated who fail to understand what is going on behind the scenes.
  But legal censorship isn't the only way to silence sites like this one. Recently, the far-left site Tecnorati condemned Laigle's Forum as "neo-nazi" for the article "Enjoy the internet while you can." Other than mention of an anonymous report, no reason was given for this, but my best guess is that I had mentioned in the article that the far-left Frankfurt School was founded by a group of Jewish German Marxists who came to the US in the early 30s to avoid the impending Holocaust. My use of the word "Jewish" is no-doubt deemed anti-Semitic by the hypersensitive tecno rats, and this pretext is no different from the use of Down's syndrome as an excuse to go after whistleblowers. Of course, if I hadn't mentioned they were Jewish, the reader would have been left wondering why a group of Germans would be fleeing before the impending holocaust, so the use of the word was clearly not racist. Besides, I didn't say anything negative about them, only that they were intent on destroying traditional American culture, and that's a positive for the far left, so what's the problem?