At the same time, they love to castigate and doxx their enemies for politically incorrect speech, so there is both looseness and overreach where law is concerned. The blowback they create via this sort of hypocrisy is severe.
Speaking of such overreach followed by castigation, here's a reminder that none other than Salon.com was trying to normalize pre-pubescent pedophelia via one of its staff members.
Normally I might use an archive link in situations like these to starve the beast, but in this instance I am using it because Salon themselves deleted the apologia. "That's great! They came to their senses," you might think. However, I don't recall them stating any kind of repudiation of this article. Instead, what I do recall is that they removed this and all other pro-pedophilia articles by the same staff member the very day they decided they were going to cancel Milo Yiannopoulos over his comments regarding his feelings on his own sexual exploitation as a teenager. Their cancellation piece is here:
Incidentally, want to know who wrote one of the earliest articles critical of Salon and suspicious of it pushing a pro pedophilia (as in, pre-pubescent) agenda on the behest of left wing interests and taste makers? Take a guess.
Re: Thank you
Speaking of such overreach followed by castigation, here's a reminder that none other than Salon.com was trying to normalize pre-pubescent pedophelia via one of its staff members.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150923001237/http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/
Normally I might use an archive link in situations like these to starve the beast, but in this instance I am using it because Salon themselves deleted the apologia. "That's great! They came to their senses," you might think. However, I don't recall them stating any kind of repudiation of this article. Instead, what I do recall is that they removed this and all other pro-pedophilia articles by the same staff member the very day they decided they were going to cancel Milo Yiannopoulos over his comments regarding his feelings on his own sexual exploitation as a teenager. Their cancellation piece is here:
http://archive.is/8JWT5
Remember, the things Milo is being excoriated for in this article were similar to the things that Salon openly embraced with Nickerson's writing.
Did you know that a 4chan anon actually warned that this would come just a day or two before it happened, unfolding exactly as described?
https://archive.vn/Dblxv
Incidentally, want to know who wrote one of the earliest articles critical of Salon and suspicious of it pushing a pro pedophilia (as in, pre-pubescent) agenda on the behest of left wing interests and taste makers? Take a guess.
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020230912/https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/09/21/heres-why-the-progressive-left-keeps-sticking-up-for-pedophiles/
Also, in Salon's sloppiness, they forgot to remove this article sympathizing with Nickerson.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200427170950/https://www.salon.com/2015/10/27/the_pedophile_i_could_not_help_he_was_not_a_monster_or_a_molester_the_system_destroyed_him_anyway/