Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Gunman opens fire at Ft Lauderdale Airport in Florida
Yup, victims are shown being put in ambulances and the shooter being arrested is blurred. The fuck?
One caption even calls some of the innocents cowards.
About an hour after the shooting, another incident occurred at a separate terminal of the airport, causing panic and sending passengers fleeing across the tarmac as police in armored gear responded with drawn weapons. The sheriff’s office said in a Twitter post that one subject was in custody, but police did not identify the individual. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida said on MSNBC that the shooter is named Esteban Santiago. Police reported receiving a call that shots were fired at the airport at 12:55 p.m. The shooting caused passengers to flee the baggage claim area and brought the airport to a standstill as flights were temporarily grounded and roads around the airport were closed to traffic. As security tightened around the airport and Miami International Airport, federal officials said the FBI was sending a terrorism task to investigate the shooting in Fort Lauderdale. But there was no indication yet that the incident is related to terrorism.
Mike Leverock, an FBI spokesman, said agents were working with local authorities in response to the shooting. The shooting appears to have taken place inside the baggage claim area in the airport’s Terminal 2, according to a tweet from the airport. The tweet did not provide further details. A later post reported that “All services are temporarily suspended” at the airport, though the upper level of the airport remained open. And the Federal Aviation Administration reported “minimal impact to flights” at the airport. FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen told the Miami Herald that flights were still landing at the airport, though they were temporarily being held out from reaching any gates. Eyewitnesses at the airport began to post photos and other messages on Twitter shortly after the shooting, including one image that showed a person shot and bleeding while seated in a corner outside the terminal.
A shooting victim is unloaded from an emergency vehicle and taken into Broward Health Trauma Center on Jan. 6 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Mark Lea, who said he was a witness to the shootings, told MSNBC that the shooter was a man, wearing a Star Wars T-shirt, and that he walked into the baggage claim area of Terminal 2 and opened fire with a single handgun. Lea said the man said nothing as we he went through three magazines before giving up and sprawling spread-eagle on the flood as a police officer took him into custody. “He had no intention of escaping,” Lea told MSNBC. Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who worked for President George W. Bush, tweeted that he was at the airport and “shots have been fired. Everyone is running.” Fleischer later tweeted that “all seems calm now but the police aren’t letting anyone out of the airport.”
Broward County Mayor Barbara Sharief told CNN that it was a “lone shooter” who is now in custody. “We have no evidence at this time that he was acting with anyone else,” she said. “We are still investigating, but we have activated our airport emergency operations center,” she added. The Fort Lauderdale airport, which does not have its own police force and relies on the sheriff’s office for law enforcement, handles about 800 flights a day and 25 million passengers a year. In 2014, the Transportation Security Administration reported making 49 gun seizures at the Fort Lauderdale airport — tied with Tampa International Airport for the seventh most gun seizures in the nation. In the wake of the shooting news, Miami-Dade officials said they beefed up security at MIA and PortMiami, its two main travel hubs. County spokesman Michael Hernandez said “out of an abundance of caution” the county was instituting “enhanced” security at both county-owned facilities.
Multiple Fatalities After Shooting at Florida Airport | Officer.com
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation says it has not ruled out terrorism in the deadly shooting Friday. FBI agent George Piro said at a Friday night news conference the bureau is “pursuing every possible lead,” including terrorism. Law enforcement officials holding the suspect say he is 26-year-old Esteban Santiago of Alaska who arrived at the airport Friday on a flight from Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska. He is believed to have opened fire at the airport, killing five people and wounding eight more before being detained. Piro said the gunman had a semi-automatic handgun.
Members of the ATF and FBI arrive at Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport, Jan. 6, 2017, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. A gunman opened fire in the baggage claim area at the airport Friday, killing five people and wounding others before being taken into custody.
At first, police were not certain whether more than one gunman was involved, so they checked everyone closely before allowing people back into the terminal. Airport operations were shut down for hours, and flights bound for Fort Lauderdale from across the country were grounded in distant cities. Authorities eventually said there was only one suspect, and that no shots were fired by any of the police agencies at the scene. The suspect was detained after he ran out of ammunition and lay down on the floor of the terminal, spread-eagled.
Suspect served in Iraq
Santiago is reported to be a former National Guard member serving in Puerto Rico. Last year, he voluntarily checked into a hospital for mental health evaluation. He is reported to have said he was hearing imaginary voices, some of them telling him to join the terrorist group Islamic State. Santiago spent 10 months in Iraq in 2010 and 2011. He later joined the Army National Guard in Alaska, the largest and most remote U.S. state. He is believed to have served in the Guard there from 2014 until August last year when he was discharged for unsatisfactory performance. Law enforcement officials also said Santiago spent some time working for a security company in Anchorage. Other accounts said Santiago was discharged from the National Guard last year for unsatisfactory performance.
People take cover outside Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., after a shooter opened fire inside a terminal
The young man is reported to have checked into a hospital in Alaska voluntarily for a mental-health evaluation last year after telling authorities he had been hearing voices in his head, some of them urging him to commit acts of violence. He also is said to have told federal agents he received messages that the U.S government was ordering him to join the terrorist group Islamic State, but there was no indication he acted on that in any way. Law-enforcement officials at the scene of the airport shooting said they believed Santiago had traveled with a handgun in a locked case in his checked luggage — a normal practice for licensed owners of weapons. They said he retrieved the luggage after arriving in Florida and loaded the gun in a restroom before walking toward travelers waiting for their bags, where he opened fire.
‘Senseless act of evil’
Gunman opens fire at Ft Lauderdale Airport in Florida
Yup, victims are shown being put in ambulances and the shooter being arrested is blurred. The fuck?
One caption even calls some of the innocents cowards.
Most of these mass murderers want their faces all over the news. Cutting out the 5 minutes of fame may discourage someone in the future.
1) This is from a UK tabloid newspaper's web site. I'm not sure how that translates to "liberal news site," or at least not liberal US-style
2) I went to your link and only saw one photo of Santiago blurred. Many other photos of him were on the page and unblurred. More, the photo that is blurred is captioned, "A photo reportedly showing Santiago being arrested at the airport is circulating online." That may mean that the blurring was not done by The Sun, or that they blurred it because the photo is not confirmed and they are attempting to avoid some sort of legal issue.
3) Other people had blurred faced in some of the photos. Some people in the airport had their faces blurred, as did Santiago's infant son.
You seem to be trying to manufacture outrage.
1) This is from a UK tabloid newspaper's web site. I'm not sure how that translates to "liberal news site," or at least not liberal US-style
2) I went to your link and only saw one photo of Santiago blurred. Many other photos of him were on the page and unblurred. More, the photo that is blurred is captioned, "A photo reportedly showing Santiago being arrested at the airport is circulating online." That may mean that the blurring was not done by The Sun, or that they blurred it because the photo is not confirmed and they are attempting to avoid some sort of legal issue.
3) Other people had blurred faced in some of the photos. Some people in the airport had their faces blurred, as did Santiago's infant son.
You seem to be trying to manufacture outrage.
1. Conservatives aren't the ones censoring the news.
2. I didn't say all the Santiago photos were blurred; but what I said that the picture of "allegedly" him being arrested is blurred. The Sun can note that they didn't blur it if they don't agree; that did NOT happen.
3. Some people had their faces blurred? Don't remember that; but I know many victims did not have their faces blurred, whereas the shooter had his picture blurred. That's what I had said, so you should be regarding that.
according to neo nazis everything bad is because of liberals.... im sure he calls movies he doesn't like "liberal movies" or describes a bad meal as a "liberal meal" etc.... it's a part of their brainwashing1) This is from a UK tabloid newspaper's web site. I'm not sure how that translates to "liberal news site," or at least not liberal US-style
1) This is from a UK tabloid newspaper's web site. I'm not sure how that translates to "liberal news site," or at least not liberal US-style
2) I went to your link and only saw one photo of Santiago blurred. Many other photos of him were on the page and unblurred. More, the photo that is blurred is captioned, "A photo reportedly showing Santiago being arrested at the airport is circulating online." That may mean that the blurring was not done by The Sun, or that they blurred it because the photo is not confirmed and they are attempting to avoid some sort of legal issue.
3) Other people had blurred faced in some of the photos. Some people in the airport had their faces blurred, as did Santiago's infant son.
You seem to be trying to manufacture outrage.
1. Conservatives aren't the ones censoring the news.
2. I didn't say all the Santiago photos were blurred; but what I said that the picture of "allegedly" him being arrested is blurred. The Sun can note that they didn't blur it if they don't agree; that did NOT happen.
3. Some people had their faces blurred? Don't remember that; but I know many victims did not have their faces blurred, whereas the shooter had his picture blurred. That's what I had said, so you should be regarding that.
1) Censoring the news? One photo had a blurred face.
2) The reason for that one photo being blurred is unknown.
3) Yes, many of the victims, or at least bystanders, were shown without blurred faces. There were also multiple pictures of Santiago without his face blurred. Why is that one picture with a blurred face liberal censorship? Why are you not railing against the other examples of face blurring in the pictures and videos as liberal censorship?
The world is not made up of liberals and conservatives. I still don't see what leads you to consider The Sun a liberal news site. It's a British tabloid.
Would you feel better if I show you that photo without the face blurred?
1) This is from a UK tabloid newspaper's web site. I'm not sure how that translates to "liberal news site," or at least not liberal US-style
2) I went to your link and only saw one photo of Santiago blurred. Many other photos of him were on the page and unblurred. More, the photo that is blurred is captioned, "A photo reportedly showing Santiago being arrested at the airport is circulating online." That may mean that the blurring was not done by The Sun, or that they blurred it because the photo is not confirmed and they are attempting to avoid some sort of legal issue.
3) Other people had blurred faced in some of the photos. Some people in the airport had their faces blurred, as did Santiago's infant son.
You seem to be trying to manufacture outrage.
1. Conservatives aren't the ones censoring the news.
2. I didn't say all the Santiago photos were blurred; but what I said that the picture of "allegedly" him being arrested is blurred. The Sun can note that they didn't blur it if they don't agree; that did NOT happen.
3. Some people had their faces blurred? Don't remember that; but I know many victims did not have their faces blurred, whereas the shooter had his picture blurred. That's what I had said, so you should be regarding that.
1) Censoring the news? One photo had a blurred face.
2) The reason for that one photo being blurred is unknown.
3) Yes, many of the victims, or at least bystanders, were shown without blurred faces. There were also multiple pictures of Santiago without his face blurred. Why is that one picture with a blurred face liberal censorship? Why are you not railing against the other examples of face blurring in the pictures and videos as liberal censorship?
The world is not made up of liberals and conservatives. I still don't see what leads you to consider The Sun a liberal news site. It's a British tabloid.
Would you feel better if I show you that photo without the face blurred?
Of course not showing the picture of a mass murderer is censorship, idiot.
1) This is from a UK tabloid newspaper's web site. I'm not sure how that translates to "liberal news site," or at least not liberal US-style
2) I went to your link and only saw one photo of Santiago blurred. Many other photos of him were on the page and unblurred. More, the photo that is blurred is captioned, "A photo reportedly showing Santiago being arrested at the airport is circulating online." That may mean that the blurring was not done by The Sun, or that they blurred it because the photo is not confirmed and they are attempting to avoid some sort of legal issue.
3) Other people had blurred faced in some of the photos. Some people in the airport had their faces blurred, as did Santiago's infant son.
You seem to be trying to manufacture outrage.
1. Conservatives aren't the ones censoring the news.
2. I didn't say all the Santiago photos were blurred; but what I said that the picture of "allegedly" him being arrested is blurred. The Sun can note that they didn't blur it if they don't agree; that did NOT happen.
3. Some people had their faces blurred? Don't remember that; but I know many victims did not have their faces blurred, whereas the shooter had his picture blurred. That's what I had said, so you should be regarding that.
1) Censoring the news? One photo had a blurred face.
2) The reason for that one photo being blurred is unknown.
3) Yes, many of the victims, or at least bystanders, were shown without blurred faces. There were also multiple pictures of Santiago without his face blurred. Why is that one picture with a blurred face liberal censorship? Why are you not railing against the other examples of face blurring in the pictures and videos as liberal censorship?
The world is not made up of liberals and conservatives. I still don't see what leads you to consider The Sun a liberal news site. It's a British tabloid.
Would you feel better if I show you that photo without the face blurred?
Of course not showing the picture of a mass murderer is censorship, idiot.
But they did show pictures of Santiago. Quite a few. His face was only blurred in one picture, and the reasons for it are not clear. I did, however, give an example of a possibility for why his face could have been blurred in that picture (avoiding potential legal repercussions).
1) This is from a UK tabloid newspaper's web site. I'm not sure how that translates to "liberal news site," or at least not liberal US-style
2) I went to your link and only saw one photo of Santiago blurred. Many other photos of him were on the page and unblurred. More, the photo that is blurred is captioned, "A photo reportedly showing Santiago being arrested at the airport is circulating online." That may mean that the blurring was not done by The Sun, or that they blurred it because the photo is not confirmed and they are attempting to avoid some sort of legal issue.
3) Other people had blurred faced in some of the photos. Some people in the airport had their faces blurred, as did Santiago's infant son.
You seem to be trying to manufacture outrage.
1. Conservatives aren't the ones censoring the news.
2. I didn't say all the Santiago photos were blurred; but what I said that the picture of "allegedly" him being arrested is blurred. The Sun can note that they didn't blur it if they don't agree; that did NOT happen.
3. Some people had their faces blurred? Don't remember that; but I know many victims did not have their faces blurred, whereas the shooter had his picture blurred. That's what I had said, so you should be regarding that.
1) Censoring the news? One photo had a blurred face.
2) The reason for that one photo being blurred is unknown.
3) Yes, many of the victims, or at least bystanders, were shown without blurred faces. There were also multiple pictures of Santiago without his face blurred. Why is that one picture with a blurred face liberal censorship? Why are you not railing against the other examples of face blurring in the pictures and videos as liberal censorship?
The world is not made up of liberals and conservatives. I still don't see what leads you to consider The Sun a liberal news site. It's a British tabloid.
Would you feel better if I show you that photo without the face blurred?
Of course not showing the picture of a mass murderer is censorship, idiot.
But they did show pictures of Santiago. Quite a few. His face was only blurred in one picture, and the reasons for it are not clear. I did, however, give an example of a possibility for why his face could have been blurred in that picture (avoiding potential legal repercussions).
There are no legal repercussions for showing a man being arrested for murder; give me a break.
1. Conservatives aren't the ones censoring the news.
2. I didn't say all the Santiago photos were blurred; but what I said that the picture of "allegedly" him being arrested is blurred. The Sun can note that they didn't blur it if they don't agree; that did NOT happen.
3. Some people had their faces blurred? Don't remember that; but I know many victims did not have their faces blurred, whereas the shooter had his picture blurred. That's what I had said, so you should be regarding that.
1) Censoring the news? One photo had a blurred face.
2) The reason for that one photo being blurred is unknown.
3) Yes, many of the victims, or at least bystanders, were shown without blurred faces. There were also multiple pictures of Santiago without his face blurred. Why is that one picture with a blurred face liberal censorship? Why are you not railing against the other examples of face blurring in the pictures and videos as liberal censorship?
The world is not made up of liberals and conservatives. I still don't see what leads you to consider The Sun a liberal news site. It's a British tabloid.
Would you feel better if I show you that photo without the face blurred?
Of course not showing the picture of a mass murderer is censorship, idiot.
But they did show pictures of Santiago. Quite a few. His face was only blurred in one picture, and the reasons for it are not clear. I did, however, give an example of a possibility for why his face could have been blurred in that picture (avoiding potential legal repercussions).
There are no legal repercussions for showing a man being arrested for murder; give me a break.
I don't know what British libel laws are like, so I don't know if publishing a photo claiming to be of a mass murderer being arrested and having it turn out to be someone else would have legal repercussions. I put if forward as a possibility. Another possibility was that the photo was already blurred when The Sun got a hold of it and they published it as-is. I've said that I don't know why that particular photo was blurred. Nor do I know why some of the photos of victims and bystanders were blurred while most were not.
I still have not seen anything from you which explains why The Sun is a liberal paper, other than the implication that The Sun is engaging in censorship and that conservatives do not engage in censorship. I don't even know what definitions of liberal and conservative you are using, considering it is a British paper and their politics are not the same as in the US. I have not seen an explanation as to why blurring Santiago's face (assuming the picture is, in fact, of him) in that one photo is liberal censorship, but the other blurred photos are not. Or, if the other blurred photos are also censorship, why you seem to accept that censorship. For that matter, I did not see any captions on the photos which "calls some of the innocents cowards," as you claim in the OP. There were a couple of photos which used the word cower or cowering, but that is not the same thing.
It still seems as though you are just looking for something to be angry about, regardless of whether it makes sense.
1) Censoring the news? One photo had a blurred face.
2) The reason for that one photo being blurred is unknown.
3) Yes, many of the victims, or at least bystanders, were shown without blurred faces. There were also multiple pictures of Santiago without his face blurred. Why is that one picture with a blurred face liberal censorship? Why are you not railing against the other examples of face blurring in the pictures and videos as liberal censorship?
The world is not made up of liberals and conservatives. I still don't see what leads you to consider The Sun a liberal news site. It's a British tabloid.
Would you feel better if I show you that photo without the face blurred?
Of course not showing the picture of a mass murderer is censorship, idiot.
But they did show pictures of Santiago. Quite a few. His face was only blurred in one picture, and the reasons for it are not clear. I did, however, give an example of a possibility for why his face could have been blurred in that picture (avoiding potential legal repercussions).
There are no legal repercussions for showing a man being arrested for murder; give me a break.
I don't know what British libel laws are like, so I don't know if publishing a photo claiming to be of a mass murderer being arrested and having it turn out to be someone else would have legal repercussions. I put if forward as a possibility. Another possibility was that the photo was already blurred when The Sun got a hold of it and they published it as-is. I've said that I don't know why that particular photo was blurred. Nor do I know why some of the photos of victims and bystanders were blurred while most were not.
I still have not seen anything from you which explains why The Sun is a liberal paper, other than the implication that The Sun is engaging in censorship and that conservatives do not engage in censorship. I don't even know what definitions of liberal and conservative you are using, considering it is a British paper and their politics are not the same as in the US. I have not seen an explanation as to why blurring Santiago's face (assuming the picture is, in fact, of him) in that one photo is liberal censorship, but the other blurred photos are not. Or, if the other blurred photos are also censorship, why you seem to accept that censorship. For that matter, I did not see any captions on the photos which "calls some of the innocents cowards," as you claim in the OP. There were a couple of photos which used the word cower or cowering, but that is not the same thing.
It still seems as though you are just looking for something to be angry about, regardless of whether it makes sense.
Conservatism isn't about censorship. That's just how it is. It's the liberals that do these things and support them, largely.
"Cowering" is the root word of coward, dude. You can't be that dense.
Of course not showing the picture of a mass murderer is censorship, idiot.
But they did show pictures of Santiago. Quite a few. His face was only blurred in one picture, and the reasons for it are not clear. I did, however, give an example of a possibility for why his face could have been blurred in that picture (avoiding potential legal repercussions).
There are no legal repercussions for showing a man being arrested for murder; give me a break.
I don't know what British libel laws are like, so I don't know if publishing a photo claiming to be of a mass murderer being arrested and having it turn out to be someone else would have legal repercussions. I put if forward as a possibility. Another possibility was that the photo was already blurred when The Sun got a hold of it and they published it as-is. I've said that I don't know why that particular photo was blurred. Nor do I know why some of the photos of victims and bystanders were blurred while most were not.
I still have not seen anything from you which explains why The Sun is a liberal paper, other than the implication that The Sun is engaging in censorship and that conservatives do not engage in censorship. I don't even know what definitions of liberal and conservative you are using, considering it is a British paper and their politics are not the same as in the US. I have not seen an explanation as to why blurring Santiago's face (assuming the picture is, in fact, of him) in that one photo is liberal censorship, but the other blurred photos are not. Or, if the other blurred photos are also censorship, why you seem to accept that censorship. For that matter, I did not see any captions on the photos which "calls some of the innocents cowards," as you claim in the OP. There were a couple of photos which used the word cower or cowering, but that is not the same thing.
It still seems as though you are just looking for something to be angry about, regardless of whether it makes sense.
Conservatism isn't about censorship. That's just how it is. It's the liberals that do these things and support them, largely.
"Cowering" is the root word of coward, dude. You can't be that dense.
Are you saying only liberals every blur the faces of people in pictures? Do you know anything about The Sun which indicates they are a liberal (however you're defining that, which you still haven't said) paper, other than this silly "conservativsm isn't about censorship" idea? In fact, in the 2015 UK general election, The Sun endorsed the Conservative Party. Election 2015: The Sun and the Scottish Sun endorse rival parties - BBC News
Cowering is crouching or cringing in fear. Are you trying to say that people cringing in fear from a shooter are cowards? Also, at least according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, cower comes from a different source than coward. Online Etymology Dictionary
Care to try again?
But they did show pictures of Santiago. Quite a few. His face was only blurred in one picture, and the reasons for it are not clear. I did, however, give an example of a possibility for why his face could have been blurred in that picture (avoiding potential legal repercussions).
There are no legal repercussions for showing a man being arrested for murder; give me a break.
I don't know what British libel laws are like, so I don't know if publishing a photo claiming to be of a mass murderer being arrested and having it turn out to be someone else would have legal repercussions. I put if forward as a possibility. Another possibility was that the photo was already blurred when The Sun got a hold of it and they published it as-is. I've said that I don't know why that particular photo was blurred. Nor do I know why some of the photos of victims and bystanders were blurred while most were not.
I still have not seen anything from you which explains why The Sun is a liberal paper, other than the implication that The Sun is engaging in censorship and that conservatives do not engage in censorship. I don't even know what definitions of liberal and conservative you are using, considering it is a British paper and their politics are not the same as in the US. I have not seen an explanation as to why blurring Santiago's face (assuming the picture is, in fact, of him) in that one photo is liberal censorship, but the other blurred photos are not. Or, if the other blurred photos are also censorship, why you seem to accept that censorship. For that matter, I did not see any captions on the photos which "calls some of the innocents cowards," as you claim in the OP. There were a couple of photos which used the word cower or cowering, but that is not the same thing.
It still seems as though you are just looking for something to be angry about, regardless of whether it makes sense.
Conservatism isn't about censorship. That's just how it is. It's the liberals that do these things and support them, largely.
"Cowering" is the root word of coward, dude. You can't be that dense.
Are you saying only liberals every blur the faces of people in pictures? Do you know anything about The Sun which indicates they are a liberal (however you're defining that, which you still haven't said) paper, other than this silly "conservativsm isn't about censorship" idea? In fact, in the 2015 UK general election, The Sun endorsed the Conservative Party. Election 2015: The Sun and the Scottish Sun endorse rival parties - BBC News
Cowering is crouching or cringing in fear. Are you trying to say that people cringing in fear from a shooter are cowards? Also, at least according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, cower comes from a different source than coward. Online Etymology Dictionary
Care to try again?
I'm saying it's a liberal tenet to censor the news; this isn't something conservatives believe in.
Technically you are are correct on the cowering; but you are underselling the connotation. They were simply taking cover, wisely.
You don't know why?Gunman opens fire at Ft Lauderdale Airport in Florida
Yup, victims are shown being put in ambulances and the shooter being arrested is blurred. The fuck?
One caption even calls some of the innocents cowards.
There are no legal repercussions for showing a man being arrested for murder; give me a break.
I don't know what British libel laws are like, so I don't know if publishing a photo claiming to be of a mass murderer being arrested and having it turn out to be someone else would have legal repercussions. I put if forward as a possibility. Another possibility was that the photo was already blurred when The Sun got a hold of it and they published it as-is. I've said that I don't know why that particular photo was blurred. Nor do I know why some of the photos of victims and bystanders were blurred while most were not.
I still have not seen anything from you which explains why The Sun is a liberal paper, other than the implication that The Sun is engaging in censorship and that conservatives do not engage in censorship. I don't even know what definitions of liberal and conservative you are using, considering it is a British paper and their politics are not the same as in the US. I have not seen an explanation as to why blurring Santiago's face (assuming the picture is, in fact, of him) in that one photo is liberal censorship, but the other blurred photos are not. Or, if the other blurred photos are also censorship, why you seem to accept that censorship. For that matter, I did not see any captions on the photos which "calls some of the innocents cowards," as you claim in the OP. There were a couple of photos which used the word cower or cowering, but that is not the same thing.
It still seems as though you are just looking for something to be angry about, regardless of whether it makes sense.
Conservatism isn't about censorship. That's just how it is. It's the liberals that do these things and support them, largely.
"Cowering" is the root word of coward, dude. You can't be that dense.
Are you saying only liberals every blur the faces of people in pictures? Do you know anything about The Sun which indicates they are a liberal (however you're defining that, which you still haven't said) paper, other than this silly "conservativsm isn't about censorship" idea? In fact, in the 2015 UK general election, The Sun endorsed the Conservative Party. Election 2015: The Sun and the Scottish Sun endorse rival parties - BBC News
Cowering is crouching or cringing in fear. Are you trying to say that people cringing in fear from a shooter are cowards? Also, at least according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, cower comes from a different source than coward. Online Etymology Dictionary
Care to try again?
I'm saying it's a liberal tenet to censor the news; this isn't something conservatives believe in.
Technically you are are correct on the cowering; but you are underselling the connotation. They were simply taking cover, wisely.
The world is not broken into liberals and conservatives.
