Free speech is too dangerous to continue?

[Foxfyre]

Republicans and Democrats are alike are trying to shut down free speech:

H.R.6090 - Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023

Do not confuse libel and slander as being the same thing as free speech please.

 

[Marener]

Here you go.



Now please answer my question. Who should have the authority to dictate what is and is not disinformation?

Did you really think that this video shows what you purport? The website you linked to demonstrates that this is misinformation.

I already answered your question. We all have our own individual authority to decide what is and isn't disinformation.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do not confuse libel and slander as being the same thing as free speech please.

Libel and slander are concerned with making false statements, not with making true statements and opinions can never be slander.

 

[Independent thinker]

John Kerry says First Amendment is the enemy, as elites try to stamp out free speech (nypost.com)

I'm getting close to 80 years old. I don't remember anything in my early schooling about free speech being dangerous. I do recall that in the Former Soviet Union, East Germany, and Mao Tse Tung's China, free speech that criticized the status quo was criminalized and punished severely to discourage wayward thinking that might upset the power structure. The people who instructed me in say, about 1962 when the Cuban Missile Crisis happened, were all survivors of the Great Depression and World War 2. They seemed to go on ad nauseam about how important it was to think and speek freely. A steady drumbeat would leave their lips about how lucky we were to be living in a place where even speech that challenged the government was allowed. These were very different people from what is in control of my home city in New Hampshire today.

My city in New Hampshire has become a very liberal, very woke, place. Those in charge of publishing and editing the local newspaper, the academic rat's nest that leads the centrally located liberal arts college, and the little rodent that hosts the daily morning radio program are public relations for everything those Depression era survivors warned us about all those years ago. You can't say bad things about special people who are trying to do good! That's why free speech that exposes flaws is dangerous! Like the Soviets, East Germans, and the Mao's new China, these people are trying to build a better world! And saying things against it is not only treachery, it's an insurrection!

That's why Donald Trump has to be charged with crimes against the state! The state is good and it is trying to do good things for the people just like the Soviets, East Germans, and Mao's gangs were trying to do! We MAGA fools are apparently too ignorant to grasp the superior thinking taking place today that lays bare the lies we were told when Castro was aiming nuclear warheads at us! Those old teachers in our schools were telling us pack of lies when they told us to protect at all costs the free speech Donald Trump is using! They had to be lying because otherwise Donald Trump could say whatever he wanted and the people could make up their own minds if they wanted to listen! But just like the Soviets, East Germans, and Mao, the government is taking steps to shield us against Donald Trump's dangerous misuse of free speech! See? It's all for our own good!

You know, I have always been leery of people doing things for my own good. The city will go for Harris and walz there is no question about that. The rest of the state? There might be a faint glimmer of hope there.

Democrats have turned us into Russia.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Democrats have turned us into Russia.

With plenty of help from our schools.

Kids are passed through schools with no knowledge of civics, but can recite every woke cliche imaginable.

 

[Raynine]

A major clue to what is going is the sudden apperance of "official fact checking". Who or what is the final arbiter of what "is" or "is not" actual truth? There is "official truth" and there is "dangerous truth"? How could something like this appear in a country that has a constitution predicated on free speech? The answer is clear-the only truth that counts is the truth that supports the government.

Well, this certainly appears to be every totalitarian civilization that has ever existed dressed up in a fine new suit of "freedom clothes". You see, it's the government that decides what's free, not the people. The people aren't smart enough to decide what's free. Only the government can do that. And of course, in order to protect the government truth, all other competing truth coming from unruly citizens has to be outlawed in order to protect the people from themselves. It's really quite simple, those methods have been around for millenia. It just has a shiny new coat of paint on it because technolgy has advanced.

What is amazing is how many people cannot see that.

 

[Independent thinker]

With plenty of help from our schools.

Kids are passed through schools with no knowledge of civics, but can recite every woke cliche imaginable.

Yes, teaching wokism is more important than the three R's.

 

[Foxfyre]

Did you really think that this video shows what you purport? The website you linked to demonstrates that this is misinformation.

View attachment 1021451

I already answered your question. We all have our own individual authority to decide what is and isn't disinformation.

Did you even listen to the video? It is only a few seconds long. No fact checker or anybody else says that is not an authentic interview with Jake Tapper. And in the context of social media she was referring to social media, not Trump.

Further both Bill Gates and Hillary Clinton along with Kerry and others are on record as wanting to restrict speech to what they deem is not 'disinformation' and Kamala has never said she is opposed to that. Of course they all expect that their definition of disinformation will be the one that is used.

I'm going to ask one last time and, if you will not answer, I will assume you will not answer and will wish you a pleasant afternoon and move on:

WHO should have the authority to determine what is and what is not disinformation? Or will you concede that the First Amendment protects an unalienable right to be wrong as well as right?

 

[Marener]

Did you even listen to the video? It is only a few seconds long. No fact checker or anybody else says that is not an authentic interview with Jake Tapper. And in the context of social media she was referring to social media, not Trump.

Further both Bill Gates and Hillary Clinton along with Kerry and others are on record as wanting to restrict speech to what they deem is not 'disinformation' and Kamala has never said she is opposed to that. Of course they all expect that their definition of disinformation will be the one that is used.

I'm going to ask one last time and, if you will not answer, I will assume you will not answer and will wish you a pleasant afternoon and move on:

WHO should have the authority to determine what is and what is not disinformation? Or will you concede that the First Amendment protects an unalienable right to be wrong as well as right?

I watched the video and it's pretty clear the context was removed from it. Hell, the video didn't even include a time stamp. The video is from 2019. The tweet claims that the "he" in the video refers to Musk, who didn't buy Twitter until years later.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/politics/kamala-harris-trump-twitter-suspension-cnntv/index.html

You've amply proved that disinformation is everywhere and that you are indeed rather susceptible to it.

The first amendment has limitations, as you pointed out. It doesn't protect from libel and slander. In those instances, the courts decide what is and isn't disinformation, does it not? This is actually a complex question with a lot of nuance to it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Libel and slander are concerned with making false statements, not with making true statements and opinions can never be slander.

No. Libel and slander are definitions of malicious speech that physically or materially harms an innocent individual(s). Libel is written. Slander is spoken. It is doubly grievous when it is s meant to advantage the one doing the libel or slander. One example: a brewing company put out false information that there is urine in a competitor's beer. The injured company won big in court over that one.

The terms are generally not applied to political campaign ads or prominent politicians however.

 

[Foxfyre]

I watched the video and it's pretty clear the context was removed from it. Hell, the video didn't even include a time stamp. The video is from 2019. The tweet claims that the "he" in the video refers to Musk, who didn't buy Twitter until years later.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/politics/kamala-harris-trump-twitter-suspension-cnntv/index.html

You've amply proved that disinformation is everywhere and that you are indeed rather susceptible to it.

The first amendment has limitations, as you pointed out. It doesn't protect from libel and slander. In those instances, the courts decide what is and isn't disinformation, does it not? This is actually a complex question with a lot of nuance to it.

So you will not answer the question. Do have a pleasant afternoon.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No. Libel and slander are definitions of malicious speech that physically or materially harms an innocent individual(s).

Only if FALSE if they are true it is not libel or slander.

Libel is written. Slander is spoken. It is doubly grievous when it is s meant to advantage the one doing the libel or slander. One example: a brewing company put out false information that there is urine in a competitor's beer. The injured company won big in court over that one.

Because it was a lie.

The terms are generally not applied to political campaign ads or prominent politicians however.

Trump knows all about this anyway, he's an expert in lying about people.

 

[bendog]

John Kerry says First Amendment is the enemy, as elites try to stamp out free speech (nypost.com)

I'm getting close to 80 years old. I don't remember anything in my early schooling about free speech being dangerous. I do recall that in the Former Soviet Union, East Germany, and Mao Tse Tung's China, free speech that criticized the status quo was criminalized and punished severely to discourage wayward thinking that might upset the power structure. The people who instructed me in say, about 1962 when the Cuban Missile Crisis happened, were all survivors of the Great Depression and World War 2. They seemed to go on ad nauseam about how important it was to think and speek freely. A steady drumbeat would leave their lips about how lucky we were to be living in a place where even speech that challenged the government was allowed. These were very different people from what is in control of my home city in New Hampshire today.

My city in New Hampshire has become a very liberal, very woke, place. Those in charge of publishing and editing the local newspaper, the academic rat's nest that leads the centrally located liberal arts college, and the little rodent that hosts the daily morning radio program are public relations for everything those Depression era survivors warned us about all those years ago. You can't say bad things about special people who are trying to do good! That's why free speech that exposes flaws is dangerous! Like the Soviets, East Germans, and the Mao's new China, these people are trying to build a better world! And saying things against it is not only treachery, it's an insurrection!

That's why Donald Trump has to be charged with crimes against the state! The state is good and it is trying to do good things for the people just like the Soviets, East Germans, and Mao's gangs were trying to do! We MAGA fools are apparently too ignorant to grasp the superior thinking taking place today that lays bare the lies we were told when Castro was aiming nuclear warheads at us! Those old teachers in our schools were telling us pack of lies when they told us to protect at all costs the free speech Donald Trump is using! They had to be lying because otherwise Donald Trump could say whatever he wanted and the people could make up their own minds if they wanted to listen! But just like the Soviets, East Germans, and Mao, the government is taking steps to shield us against Donald Trump's dangerous misuse of free speech! See? It's all for our own good!

You know, I have always been leery of people doing things for my own good. The city will go for Harris and walz there is no question about that. The rest of the state? There might be a faint glimmer of hope there.

It's always been illegal to knowingly lie about any public person. The gop in Miss is doing a pretty decent job of using libel laws to shut down the one left leaning news outlet to cover for a former governor and brett farve.
Brett Farve, btw.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A major clue to what is going is the sudden apperance of "official fact checking". Who or what is the final arbiter of what "is" or "is not" actual truth? There is "official truth" and there is "dangerous truth"? How could something like this appear in a country that has a constitution predicated on free speech? The answer is clear-the only truth that counts is the truth that supports the government.

Well, this certainly appears to be every totalitarian civilization that has ever existed dressed up in a fine new suit of "freedom clothes". You see, it's the government that decides what's free, not the people. The people aren't smart enough to decide what's free. Only the government can do that. And of course, in order to protect the government truth, all other competing truth coming from unruly citizens has to be outlawed in order to protect the people from themselves. It's really quite simple, those methods have been around for millenia. It just has a shiny new coat of paint on it because technolgy has advanced.

What is amazing is how many people cannot see that.

I have always been impressed with the way you write.

 

[bendog]

I have always been impressed with the way you write.

so, should Vance be free to lie about Haitans, when even gopers know he's lying?

 

[Marener]

So you will not answer the question. Do have a pleasant afternoon.

This is pretty typical for how you debate. You insist that I haven't answered your question when I've addressed it and then run off.

Some people just aren't cut out for this kind of thing.