Ministry Of Truth being implemented

[Trausti]

Yeah, nothing there contradicts anything I have said.

Those authoritarian tears got you choked? You wrote that the1st Amendment did not include political and commercial speech.

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

Lying is only unprotected when it’s in commercial speech, used for fraud, or libel/slander. E.g., holocaust denial is protected speech even though it may offend many people.

 

[bilby]

Yeah, nothing there contradicts anything I have said.

Those authoritarian tears got you choked? You wrote that the1st Amendment did not include political and commercial speech.

and it doesn't.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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

Lying is only unprotected when it’s in commercial speech, used for fraud, or libel/slander. E.g., holocaust denial is protected speech even though it may offend many people.

"Offend"<>"Harm"

Don't forget to lift with your back when you move those goalposts.

As your own link clearly shows, the courts have repeatedly said that it's OK to limit speech that causes harm to people.

 

[Trausti]

As your own link clearly shows, the courts have repeatedly said that it's OK to limit speech that causes harm to people.

Blasphemy harms people. That’s the excuse the Islamists use when justifying killing apostates or Western cartoonists. Blasphemy is protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[bilby]

As your own link clearly shows, the courts have repeatedly said that it's OK to limit speech that causes harm to people.

Blasphemy harms people.

No, it doesn't.

That’s the excuse the Islamists use when justifying killing apostates or Western cartoonists.

So what? People who want to commit crimes often have excuses based on falsehood.

You appear to still be struggling with the idea that being offended doesn't imply being harmed. Which is odd, because even third graders are usually aware of the distinction.

Blasphemy is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Good.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's fascinating how Reich-wingers are all for banning books and new draconian laws stopping social and emotional learning, but when a government board gets created to help debunk disinformation from the nation's enemies suddenly Russianpublicans are like "THEY'RE GOING TO ARREST YOU FOR FREE SPEECH!!!11one!" This is classic accuse the other guy of what you're doing. It would probably be a little funny, too, if they weren't creating national security issues and destroying democracy.

"Misinformation." What a shit term. Could you define it? Who gets to define it? And why should a law enforcement agency be in charge of it?

I would define it as lying and you agree. It's quite legal to lie outside the courtroom. Do you have a point to make? You seem a little upset.

 

[bilby]

It's quite legal to lie outside the courtroom.

Not always. Fraud is illegal even when it takes place outside a courtroom.

 

[Trausti]

You appear to still be struggling with the idea that being offended doesn't imply being harmed. Which is odd, because even third graders are usually aware of the distinction.

What are you on about? You’re the one trying to limit the protection of the 1st Amendment, not me.

 

[Trausti]

It's fascinating how Reich-wingers are all for banning books and new draconian laws stopping social and emotional learning, but when a government board gets created to help debunk disinformation from the nation's enemies suddenly Russianpublicans are like "THEY'RE GOING TO ARREST YOU FOR FREE SPEECH!!!11one!" This is classic accuse the other guy of what you're doing. It would probably be a little funny, too, if they weren't creating national security issues and destroying democracy.

"Misinformation." What a shit term. Could you define it? Who gets to define it? And why should a law enforcement agency be in charge of it?

I would define it as lying and you agree. It's quite legal to lie outside the courtroom. Do you have a point to make? You seem a little upset.

Misinformation is anything that doesn’t fit the current allowed narrative, apparently.

 

[Patooka]

Still going on about that hoax? Maybe people would believe you if you actually pointed out what we're supposed to be outraged about.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Misinformation is anything that doesn’t fit the current allowed narrative, apparently.

No. Misinformation is information that is false, such as Orange saying there was voter fraud in 2020 that cost him the election.

 

[Gospel]

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

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

That's just the begining.

 

[Gospel]

We gave our government.more.power because 911. Then Edward Snowden revealed how far they took that inch beyond a mile.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Misinformation is anything that doesn’t fit the current allowed narrative, apparently.

How do you think an informed jury would take that claim? I think they'd call bullshit.

Maybe you need to look at what people say with more of a forensic sense, requiring evidence and not emotional conviction. If you keep seeing the world emotionally and not scientifically you will constantly be confused, as you appear to be most of the time you post here.

 

[barbos]

Oh, not the West, you have freedom of the speech where you can take a picture which shows one thing and post it as something opposite to that. That's freedom!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, nothing there contradicts anything I have said.

Those authoritarian tears got you choked? You wrote that the1st Amendment did not include political and commercial speech.

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

Lying is only unprotected when it’s in commercial speech, used for fraud, or libel/slander. E.g., holocaust denial is protected speech even though it may offend many people.

Holocaust denial is merely offensive. He said "harm".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As your own link clearly shows, the courts have repeatedly said that it's OK to limit speech that causes harm to people.

Blasphemy harms people. That’s the excuse the Islamists use when justifying killing apostates or Western cartoonists. Blasphemy is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Blasphemy offends, it does not harm. Can you point to the injury the blasphemy caused??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's fascinating how Reich-wingers are all for banning books and new draconian laws stopping social and emotional learning, but when a government board gets created to help debunk disinformation from the nation's enemies suddenly Russianpublicans are like "THEY'RE GOING TO ARREST YOU FOR FREE SPEECH!!!11one!" This is classic accuse the other guy of what you're doing. It would probably be a little funny, too, if they weren't creating national security issues and destroying democracy.

"Misinformation." What a shit term. Could you define it? Who gets to define it? And why should a law enforcement agency be in charge of it?

I would define it as lying and you agree. It's quite legal to lie outside the courtroom. Do you have a point to make? You seem a little upset.

Misinformation is anything that doesn’t fit the current allowed narrative, apparently.

Well, duh! It's obviously disinformation put out by somebody. While there isn't proof who is behind it Russia is certainly a likely culprit.

Just because you want it to have legs doesn't make it so. Most people have seen that it doesn't add up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We gave our government.more.power because 911. Then Edward Snowden revealed how far they took that inch beyond a mile.

I don't think so--I think 9/11 and the Patriot Act simply legalized some of what was already going on.

 

[Patooka]

This seems appropriate considering the faux pearl clutching over free speech:

 

[bilby]

You appear to still be struggling with the idea that being offended doesn't imply being harmed. Which is odd, because even third graders are usually aware of the distinction.

What are you on about? You’re the one trying to limit the protection of the 1st Amendment, not me.

I apologise if my responding to the things you post is too confusing for you.

If you can't remember what was said a few posts ago, the scroll function might help you out of your disorientation.