Ministry Of Truth being implemented

[Trausti]

Or as thebiden admin calls it, "Disinformation Governance Board".

Headed up by Nina Jankowicz, this board's aim is to suppress "disinformation" and save democracy, from the Russians?

How Orwellian.

Calling disinformation the truth doesn't make it so. Your side is descending farther and farther into loony-bin territory. You'll probably lose the civil war you're trying to trigger because you'll be so far out of touch with reality. The keystone coup writ large.

Who gets to define "disinformation"? Is all speech that questions or criticizes the government "disinformation"? Why the hell would you want to give a law enforcement agency that power?

Disinformation is stuff that has already been debunked but keeps being promoted anyway.

What, like Russia collusion? Pee tapes? Every authoritarian government labels speech it does like as misinformation. And, the premise of blasphemy laws is that denying the one true religion is misinformation. How do folks on an atheist/agnostic board fall for this shit?

 

[Trausti]

Or as thebiden admin calls it, "Disinformation Governance Board".

Headed up by Nina Jankowicz, this board's aim is to suppress "disinformation" and save democracy, from the Russians?

How Orwellian.

Calling disinformation the truth doesn't make it so. Your side is descending farther and farther into loony-bin territory. You'll probably lose the civil war you're trying to trigger because you'll be so far out of touch with reality. The keystone coup writ large.

Who gets to define "disinformation"? Is all speech that questions or criticizes the government "disinformation"? Why the hell would you want to give a law enforcement agency that power?

All of the bullshit that Cargill and the Russians pushed about GMO crops is disinfo. Lies about vaccines pushed by Mercola et al. are disinfo.

And that men can have babies. That there are more than two genders. Race does not exist. Right? Hell, it used to be “misinformation” that the vaccinated could still get Covid. Yet, now?

Who do you want to decide the truth? You or the government?

 

[bilby]

Who do you want to decide the truth? You or the government?

Neither.

Truth isn't decided. It's discovered, by the application of the scientific method.

That you think someone can decide what is true is frankly fucking horrifying, and is the reason why we see the pathetic spectacle of people squabbling over whether their truth should be allowed to prevail.

Law enforcement has always been used to regulate speech. You are not allowed to make false claims to sell a product or service; You are not allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Should you be allowed to make false claims to gain power, but not money? Should you be allowed to use false information to incite violence, but not to cause dangerous panic?

Your attempts to disguise your desire to determine what should and shouldn't be permitted, such that you can say whatever the fuck you like no matter how harmful, by pretending that any restrictions at all are unacceptable and that therefore you should have no limits imposed upon you, are transparent and pathetic.

Freedom of speech has never prevented any government from protecting its citizens against fraud. And disinformation is fraud.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or as thebiden admin calls it, "Disinformation Governance Board".

Headed up by Nina Jankowicz, this board's aim is to suppress "disinformation" and save democracy, from the Russians?

How Orwellian.

The concept is Orwellian, if the intention is Orwellian. Was the CDC Orwellian in trying to dispel misinformation regarding the vaccines or Covid-19?

Optic-wise, it has issues, but then again, from 'woke' to 'ACA' to 'CRT', the right-wing will spin anything it wants into some partisan monstrosity.

 

[Trausti]

Law enforcement has always been used to regulate speech. You are not allowed to make false claims to sell a product or service; You are not allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

It is unconstitutional in the US for the government to regulate political speech. That makes authoritarians like you sad.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or as thebiden admin calls it, "Disinformation Governance Board".

Headed up by Nina Jankowicz, this board's aim is to suppress "disinformation" and save democracy, from the Russians?

How Orwellian.

Calling disinformation the truth doesn't make it so. Your side is descending farther and farther into loony-bin territory. You'll probably lose the civil war you're trying to trigger because you'll be so far out of touch with reality. The keystone coup writ large.

Who gets to define "disinformation"? Is all speech that questions or criticizes the government "disinformation"? Why the hell would you want to give a law enforcement agency that power?

All of the bullshit that Cargill and the Russians pushed about GMO crops is disinfo. Lies about vaccines pushed by Mercola et al. are disinfo.

And that men can have babies. That there are more than two genders. Race does not exist. Right? Hell, it used to be “misinformation” that the vaccinated could still get Covid. Yet, now?

Who do you want to decide the truth? You or the government?

There is truth and there is misinformation. Disproving misinformation doesn't mean endorsement of anything.

Granted, it has become accepted among a majority of Republicans that the 2020 election had issues with legitimacy, despite Trump not taking such issues to court, so clearly misinformation is an important tool of the alt-right, and must be protected.

 

[Trausti]

The concept is Orwellian, if the intention is Orwellian. Was the CDC Orwellian in trying to dispel misinformation regarding the vaccines or Covid-19?

How is it that government agencies have been able to issue statements or warnings about inaccuracies or fraud up to this point? What need now for a law enforcement agency to make edicts about “misinformation”? Or, right, an African American just bought Twitter.

 

[Trausti]

Or as thebiden admin calls it, "Disinformation Governance Board".

Headed up by Nina Jankowicz, this board's aim is to suppress "disinformation" and save democracy, from the Russians?

How Orwellian.

Calling disinformation the truth doesn't make it so. Your side is descending farther and farther into loony-bin territory. You'll probably lose the civil war you're trying to trigger because you'll be so far out of touch with reality. The keystone coup writ large.

Who gets to define "disinformation"? Is all speech that questions or criticizes the government "disinformation"? Why the hell would you want to give a law enforcement agency that power?

All of the bullshit that Cargill and the Russians pushed about GMO crops is disinfo. Lies about vaccines pushed by Mercola et al. are disinfo.

And that men can have babies. That there are more than two genders. Race does not exist. Right? Hell, it used to be “misinformation” that the vaccinated could still get Covid. Yet, now?

Who do you want to decide the truth? You or the government?

There is truth and there is misinformation. Disproving misinformation doesn't mean endorsement of anything.

Granted, it has become accepted among a majority of Republicans that the 2020 election had issues with legitimacy, despite Trump not taking such issues to court, so clearly misinformation is an important tool of the alt-right, and must be protected.

The whole Russia collusion hoax was misinformation. Can we agree it’s better for people to decide - and discuss - on their own without government meddling?

 

[bilby]

Law enforcement has always been used to regulate speech. You are not allowed to make false claims to sell a product or service; You are not allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

It is unconstitutional in the US for the government to regulate political speech. That makes authoritarians like you sad.

There's no mention in the constitution of protecting "political" anything.

The US Constitution prohibits Congress from making a law abridging the freedom of speech; And yet this has been ruled not to prohibit speech of certain kinds and in certain contexts. Fraudulent advertising of goods is illegal, and you won't get far trying to defend such fraud in court by claiming the protection of the First Amendment.

Indeed, you would probably find yourself on contempt charges as soon as you responded to "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" with "No, because that would infringe my constitutional rights!"

Your pseudolaw is no more convincing than that of the Sovereign Citizen movement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No American government should use law enforcement to regulate speech. Why is that controversial?

This isn't about regulating speech, but about combating disinformation.

 

[Patooka]

No American government should use law enforcement to regulate speech. Why is that controversial?

Fuck me this is adorable. The 60s would like a word with you. As would Joe McCarthy.

 

[bilby]

Can we agree it’s better for people to decide - and discuss - on their own without government meddling?

This is as convincing as a mugger arguing in court that he and his victim should have been allowed to decide on their own who gets the wallet, without government meddling.

 

[Trausti]

Law enforcement has always been used to regulate speech. You are not allowed to make false claims to sell a product or service; You are not allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

It is unconstitutional in the US for the government to regulate political speech. That makes authoritarians like you sad.

There's no mention in the constitution of protecting "political" anything.

The US Constitution prohibits Congress from making a law abridging the freedom of speech; And yet this has been ruled not to prohibit speech of certain kinds and in certain contexts. Fraudulent advertising of goods is illegal, and you won't get far trying to defend such fraud in court by claiming the protection of the First Amendment.

Indeed, you would probably find yourself on contempt charges as soon as you responded to "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" with "No, because that would infringe my constitutional rights!"

Your pseudolaw is no more convincing than that of the Sovereign Citzen movement.

Political (and religious) speech gets the highest constitutional protection. Commercial speech, e.g., advertising, gets lower scrutiny, but still protected. You’re not an American so you may not get how the 1st Amendment works. But your authoritarian rantings hint it’ll make you sad.

 

[Trausti]

No American government should use law enforcement to regulate speech. Why is that controversial?

Fuck me this is adorable. The 60s would like a word with you. As would Joe McCarthy.

You endorse Joseph McCarthy?

 

[bilby]

Law enforcement has always been used to regulate speech. You are not allowed to make false claims to sell a product or service; You are not allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

It is unconstitutional in the US for the government to regulate political speech. That makes authoritarians like you sad.

There's no mention in the constitution of protecting "political" anything.

The US Constitution prohibits Congress from making a law abridging the freedom of speech; And yet this has been ruled not to prohibit speech of certain kinds and in certain contexts. Fraudulent advertising of goods is illegal, and you won't get far trying to defend such fraud in court by claiming the protection of the First Amendment.

Indeed, you would probably find yourself on contempt charges as soon as you responded to "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" with "No, because that would infringe my constitutional rights!"

Your pseudolaw is no more convincing than that of the Sovereign Citzen movement.

Political (and religious) speech gets the highest constitutional protection. Commercial speech, e.g., advertising, gets lower scrutiny, but still protected. You’re not an American so you may not get how the 1st Amendment works. But your authoritarian rantings hint it’ll make you sad.

The First Amendment explicitly mentions religion.

It says nothing about politics or political anything. Nor, for that matter, does it mention "commercial speech".

You're American, so your education may well have been poor, but the good news is that anyone (even people outside America) can read the US Constitution online, and let you know whan you are making shit up that simply isn't in there.

 

[Patooka]

You endorse Joseph McCarthy?

Yes. That was totally my point. Well done.

 

[Trausti]

Law enforcement has always been used to regulate speech. You are not allowed to make false claims to sell a product or service; You are not allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

It is unconstitutional in the US for the government to regulate political speech. That makes authoritarians like you sad.

There's no mention in the constitution of protecting "political" anything.

The US Constitution prohibits Congress from making a law abridging the freedom of speech; And yet this has been ruled not to prohibit speech of certain kinds and in certain contexts. Fraudulent advertising of goods is illegal, and you won't get far trying to defend such fraud in court by claiming the protection of the First Amendment.

Indeed, you would probably find yourself on contempt charges as soon as you responded to "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" with "No, because that would infringe my constitutional rights!"

Your pseudolaw is no more convincing than that of the Sovereign Citzen movement.

Political (and religious) speech gets the highest constitutional protection. Commercial speech, e.g., advertising, gets lower scrutiny, but still protected. You’re not an American so you may not get how the 1st Amendment works. But your authoritarian rantings hint it’ll make you sad.

The First Amendment explicitly mentions religion.

It says nothing about politics or political anything. Nor, for that matter, does it mention "commercial speech".

You're American, so your education may well have been poor, but the good news is that anyone (even people outside America) can read the US Constitution online, and let you know whan you are making shit up that simply isn't in there.

FFS. Just take the L and cry your authoritarian tears.

The First Amendment: Categories of Speech

 

[Trausti]

You endorse Joseph McCarthy?

Yes. That was totally my point. Well done.

If it was bad then it would also be bad now, right? Or do you have a double standard you’d like to share?

 

[Patooka]

If it was bad then it would also be bad now, right? Or do you have a double standard you’d like to share?

Nope. Just pointing out that what the Biden administration is doing is not what you and TSwizzle are accusing it of doing. But then again, I suspect you already know that.

Whatever sticks on the wall, right?

 

[bilby]

Law enforcement has always been used to regulate speech. You are not allowed to make false claims to sell a product or service; You are not allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

It is unconstitutional in the US for the government to regulate political speech. That makes authoritarians like you sad.

There's no mention in the constitution of protecting "political" anything.

The US Constitution prohibits Congress from making a law abridging the freedom of speech; And yet this has been ruled not to prohibit speech of certain kinds and in certain contexts. Fraudulent advertising of goods is illegal, and you won't get far trying to defend such fraud in court by claiming the protection of the First Amendment.

Indeed, you would probably find yourself on contempt charges as soon as you responded to "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" with "No, because that would infringe my constitutional rights!"

Your pseudolaw is no more convincing than that of the Sovereign Citzen movement.

Political (and religious) speech gets the highest constitutional protection. Commercial speech, e.g., advertising, gets lower scrutiny, but still protected. You’re not an American so you may not get how the 1st Amendment works. But your authoritarian rantings hint it’ll make you sad.

The First Amendment explicitly mentions religion.

It says nothing about politics or political anything. Nor, for that matter, does it mention "commercial speech".

You're American, so your education may well have been poor, but the good news is that anyone (even people outside America) can read the US Constitution online, and let you know whan you are making shit up that simply isn't in there.

FFS. Just take the L and cry your authoritarian tears.

The First Amendment: Categories of Speech

Yeah, nothing there contradicts anything I have said.

Freedom of speech in the US is not the absolute that you would like to claim, and has been interpreted and reinterpreted several times by the courts.

You still don't have the constitutional right to harm people by lying to them.