Ministry Of Truth being implemented

[Trausti]

You’re not an American so you may not get how the 1st Amendment works.

He seems to better understand how the First Amendment works than you do, apparently.

??? He said there was nothing called political or commercial speech. He’s was wrong. FFS.

 

[Trausti]

Putin lets me dispute US foreign polices just fine

 

[Hermit]

Putin lets me dispute US foreign polices just fine

Ron, the plagiarist.

 

[scombrid]

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

Law to regulate speech? Hopefully not. That would be turrible. But it would be nice to have a governing body that is elected or run by elected officials that analyzes things and puts out best available information so that horseshit like the “vaccines destroy immunity” threads have a reliable counterweight. Problem is these days that you people are the ones using that horseshit as a political weapon because you live disinfo if it buys you a tax cut or a neutered EPA/OSHA.

 

[scombrid]

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?

No it wasn’t a hoax. Trump campaign knew when things were getting dumped. Beyond that I watched the disinfo creep in starting with the DHS Bullet and FEMA coffin conspiracy theories back in 2009 and 2010. Now all the 911 twoofers and anitvaxxers are hardcore for GOP and the sad thing is that formerly sane conservatives are now falling into those rabbit holes. Fucking Trumpers are trying to refuse Rabies Vax and such at our practice. Seriously. That is fucking infuriating and Gooliani/Carlson/OANN/Newsmax JAQing off is directly to blame. Fucking Cargill and the Kochs have been on the Russian side for years. There are oligarchs over multinational syndicates that want all governments to be weak or compliant. That is why they are trying to smoke NATO/EU. That is why they want Marine La Pen to rise in FrNce and why they pushed all the Brexit disinfo. I wish the EU would just bury UK at this point.

 

[scombrid]

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.

Wait till that fucker doesn’t like what you are posting on Twitter. He will fucking delete you so fast. It will be just like YouTube for the last 10 years where scammers and hoaxers that get clicks are protected and all debunking gets deleted. Sad thing is that debunking is now considered libtard.

 

[atrib]

You’re not an American so you may not get how the 1st Amendment works.

He seems to better understand how the First Amendment works than you do, apparently.

??? He said there was nothing called political or commercial speech. He’s was wrong. FFS.

He understands that not ALL speech is protected. Which you apparently have a hard time wrapping your head around.

 

[Jarhyn]

You’re not an American so you may not get how the 1st Amendment works.

He seems to better understand how the First Amendment works than you do, apparently.

??? He said there was nothing called political or commercial speech. He’s was wrong. FFS.

He understands that not ALL speech is protected. Which you apparently have a hard time wrapping your head around.

Well, that's the thing. Conservatives don't want all speech protected either.

They just want their speech protected, regardless of what mouthpiece they speak from (even the mouthpiece of the state).

Just look: they simultaneously argue that teachers need a right to lead public prayers, and then argue that teachers be muzzled when discussing their spouses, or when students ask them questions about gender.

The government has a right to express information for the sake of the public trust. What else is the Library of Congress except this?

It is just silliness, though, to think the government has no interest in prevention of the taking of sides of government agency on matters which the government has a charter to agnosticism to, or that it has no interest in presenting information supporting the public trust.

 

[Gun Nut]

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?

Misinformation: The intentional distortion of facts to illicit a desired response.
And just to head off the "intentions" argument that anyone can lie and get away with acting innocent - courts have been determining "intent" of people accused of crimes for hundreds of years... the measure of that is called the "reasonable person". In other words.. its unreasonable to try and claim that no one can ever prove a fact or an intent to distort facts.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

Great point...
"My gun is bigger than yours... so I get to fuck your wife and take your shit, you tiny gun faggot"... I guess that's from the "good-ole-days" the repulitards think they want.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

I'll gladly "allow" for unregulated and unlimited and completely free speech if we can also "allow" for unregulated and completely free Democracy - by way of eliminating the electoral collage and having a simple popular vote for all elections... any takers on that trade?
You can scream "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater (or "FAKE NEWS" in a crowded emergency COVID hospital ward) and hurt anyone you want that way, but there will be no more gerrymandering or other trickery available for there to ever be another Republican in office ever again... that's a trade I could seriously consider.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

This example is not protected speech because it falls into the categories you listed... it is Fraud if you are trying to convince someone of something you have already been told is false (we are talking about the fact of exitance, not the opinion of "goodness" or w/e). I tis slanderous to say those that are speaking about the holocaust are liars. It is "commercial" speech if it is monetized on youtube, or a politician is saying it to stay in power (paid to be in power).
It is potentially unprotected speech in every way you stated.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

Show how Blasphemy "harms" people. I believe it helps people find their way out of the shadows of superstition and monsters under the bed. Threat of being sent to an imaginary place of punishment is no harm.
When religionists impose their primitive superstitious fears on others by teaching their religion to children, they are harming others like the pedophiles they are... but we still allow for it in our constitution... for now.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Show how Blasphemy "harms" people. I believe it helps people find their way out of the shadows of superstition and monsters under the bed. Threat of being sent to an imaginary place of punishment is no harm.
When religionists impose their primitive superstitious fears on others by teaching their religion to children, they are harming others like the pedophiles they are... but we still allow for it in our constitution... for now.

In other words we are always free to demand evidence for claims, either of an afterlife, or of gods existing, or of basis in shared axioms, before leveling some claim of 'heresy' or 'blasphemy'.

The harms such as can be imposed by speech are made such exclusively by their contradiction to reality.

Personally, though, I think children ought be taught a religion, even, perhaps especially, one the parents do not believe.

Doing so primes a child for the great realization that sometimes folks lie, believe crazy shit, teach shit from a perspective that evinces no understanding of the core material, and are otherwise full of shit and superstition, and that the things they believed merely because they were taught it ought not be immune to such internal critical thought.

It is perhaps one of the most important aspects to raising a child, to teach them that understanding comes from doubt, and that not even one's cherished beliefs learned in childhood ought stand sacrosanct against this doubt.

 

[Gun Nut]

LOL;

The head of President Joe Biden's new Disinformation Governance Board has a history of pushing now-debunked claims that there are ties between Russia and Donald Trump, old and recently resurfaced tweets reveal. Nina Jankowicz promoted several claims from Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign on Twitter, including allegations that are now being looked into by special counsel John Durham. In November 2016, Jankowicz, a Russian misinformation 'expert,' tweeted: 'Husband texted me 'you have news to wake up to.' Never thought it would be this. Confirms our worst fears about Trump. I am horrified.'

Daily Mail

And this bimbo in charge of "disinformation"

This article is disinformation. It admits it within the article itself... After the quoted bit where it calls Jankowicz claims "now-debunked", it later classifies her claims as "being looked-into".... So which is it? Have they been "debunked" (and if so, what were they and how were they "debunked").. .or are they being "looked at" (and if so, by whom and how)?

 

[blastula]

LOL;

The head of President Joe Biden's new Disinformation Governance Board has a history of pushing now-debunked claims that there are ties between Russia and Donald Trump, old and recently resurfaced tweets reveal. Nina Jankowicz promoted several claims from Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign on Twitter, including allegations that are now being looked into by special counsel John Durham. In November 2016, Jankowicz, a Russian misinformation 'expert,' tweeted: 'Husband texted me 'you have news to wake up to.' Never thought it would be this. Confirms our worst fears about Trump. I am horrified.'

Daily Mail

And this bimbo in charge of "disinformation"

Yeah, she's not doing a very good job, if you're still allowed to post.

Where is all the authoritarian regulation and enforcement of speech I've been promised in this thread? Let's go Brandon, get on it!

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Unless it is protestors between the government and its photo-op. Would shooting in the leg count as "regulation"?

 

[bilby]

You’re not an American so you may not get how the 1st Amendment works.

He seems to better understand how the First Amendment works than you do, apparently.

??? He said there was nothing called political or commercial speech. He’s was wrong. FFS.

He said no such thing.

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

He was right.

Reality exists, and continues to exist even if it disagrees with the political positions your Daily Mail asks you to adopt. (You have the right to decline, by the way; The Daily Mail isn't holy scripture that you can only disregard on peril of eternal damnation).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

No it wasn’t a hoax. Trump campaign knew when things were getting dumped. Beyond that I watched the disinfo creep in starting with the DHS Bullet and FEMA coffin conspiracy theories back in 2009 and 2010. Now all the 911 twoofers and anitvaxxers are hardcore for GOP and the sad thing is that formerly sane conservatives are now falling into those rabbit holes. Fucking Trumpers are trying to refuse Rabies Vax and such at our practice. Seriously. That is fucking infuriating and Gooliani/Carlson/OANN/Newsmax JAQing off is directly to blame. Fucking Cargill and the Kochs have been on the Russian side for years. There are oligarchs over multinational syndicates that want all governments to be weak or compliant. That is why they are trying to smoke NATO/EU. That is why they want Marine La Pen to rise in FrNce and why they pushed all the Brexit disinfo. I wish the EU would just bury UK at this point.

I'm not sure on whether there was actually collusion. Russia was certainly aiding His Flatulence, but I'm not sure there was active cooperation rather than just exploiting a fool.

 

[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.

This example is not protected speech because it falls into the categories you listed... it is Fraud if you are trying to convince someone of something you have already been told is false (we are talking about the fact of exitance, not the opinion of "goodness" or w/e). I tis slanderous to say those that are speaking about the holocaust are liars. It is "commercial" speech if it is monetized on youtube, or a politician is saying it to stay in power (paid to be in power).
It is potentially unprotected speech in every way you stated.

Hey, good point. Hit the in the pocketbook! They're pulling their crap for money, it's commercial speech.