He was responding to a question about the cancellation of his exhibition by the Lisson Gallery in London in November following comments on social media referencing the Israel-Hamas conflict.
His post, which was subsequently deleted, suggested the “sense of guilt around the persecution of the Jewish people” had been transferred and used against the Arab world.
Referring to his own family’s exile when he was one year old, the activist said: "I grew up within this heavy political censorship.
“I realise now, today in the West, you are doing exactly the same.”
He drew parallels with the disastrous purge under Mao, which took China to the brink of anarchy.
Criticising the suspension of two New York University professors for comments related to Gaza, Ai said: "This is really like a cultural revolution, which is really trying to destroy anybody who have different attitudes, not even a clear opinion.
Ai’s art often addresses political issues in China and he has frequently criticised Beijing’s record on human rights and democracy.
Edward Snowden published top-secret material about (illegal) surveillance being done by the NSA. Regardless of whether or not what the NSA was doing, the activities were highly classified. That is not the same things as reporting; you’ll note that the reporters and newspapers that published what Snowden leaked (The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, others) didn’t face any reprisals from the US gov’t, just Snowden; that’s likely because the US gov’t already lost that fight in NYT v. US in 1971.
Edward Snowden exposed the CIA for violating the constitution. He was legally bound to expose the CIA.
If that was the case, then staying in the US to fight the charges would have been the logical step. But it’s not, so it wasn’t.
Also, he exposed the NSA. Not the CIA.
The US was also breaking the constitution why would they uphold it? You’re using a catch 22 for nonsense defense.
Also he worked for the CIA and you are right he exposed the NSA as well.
Claiming that the organization was breaking the laws, and so he was legally protected in leaking information–that would be roughly a whistleblower defense–is an affirmative defense. It’s similar to saying that I was legally justified in shooting someone because they were assaulting me. But affirmative defenses require you to show up in court, not defect to a hostile country that is doing far, far worse than the US has done in the last century or so.
If he truly believed that what he was doing was legally defensible, then he would have stayed and lawyered up.
Did Epstein kill himself?
Probably. His autopsy was consistent with suicide, and cameras not working in jails, and DoC cops not doing their jobs is pretty much par for the course everywhere. A multi-millionaire, life-long child sex abuser, committing suicide rather than rotting in prison and getting the shit kicked out of them monthly? Yeah, it tracks. It’s plausible, it’s consistent with the forensic evidence we have available, and in the absence of anything other than, “well, that seems awfully convenient for Clinton, Trump, and Prince Andrew!”, that’s the best answer there is.
I mean OK if you think Epstein killed himself then you win and I’m not going to bother debating this.
And exactly what evidence do you have that Epstein was murdered? Please, share with the class.