Free speech is too dangerous to continue?

[Foxfyre]

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.

You did not and would not answer the question. And I don't care to waste any more time trying to get you to do so. So again have a lovely afternoon.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So you'd feel free to lie in court or lie to your boss or wife or coworkers?

And Trump can commit libel?

I do not have a boss, only employees, and I support our constitutional rights.

We are very much unlike one another.

 

[Invisibleflash]

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.

 

[Marener]

You did not and would not answer the question. And I don't care to waste any more time trying to get you to do so. So again have a lovely afternoon.

But I did, you just didn’t like the answer.

There are times when courts have to decide what is misinformation. Every other time, the individual makes the determination. The government also can exercise speech, which is a little crazy I know. The government can say something is disinformation. The question is what can they do about it and the answer depends on the circumstances but is almost always, nothing beyond say it’s disinformation.

You did waste all our time by posting misinformation from social media in a thread talking about the problems with misinformation on social media. That was a hoot.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I did, you just didn’t like the answer.

There are times when courts have to decide what is misinformation. Every other time, the individual makes the determination. The government also can exercise speech, which is a little crazy I know. The government can say something is disinformation. The question is what can they do about it and the answer depends on the circumstances but is almost always, nothing beyond say it’s disinformation.

You did waste all our time by posting misinformation from social media in a thread talking about the problems with misinformation on social media. That was a hoot.

If the individual makes the determination about what is and what is not disinformation, then what are Kerry, Hillary, Gates, Kamala talking about when they say the government should restrict or suppress disinformation?

 

[Marener]

If the individual makes the determination about what is and what is not disinformation, then what are Kerry, Hillary, Gates, Kamala talking about when they say the government should restrict or suppress disinformation?

We already demonstrated that your quote from Harris has nothing to do with suppressing disinformation.

Kerry doesn’t offer any ideas as to how to combat disinformation. No one really knows. But we do recognize it’s a problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

We already demonstrated that your quote from Harris has nothing to do with suppressing disinformation.

Kerry doesn’t offer any ideas as to how to combat disinformation. No one really knows. But we do recognize it’s a problem.

They all say disinformation should not be allowed.

 

[WEATHER53]

If the individual makes the determination about what is and what is not disinformation, then what are Kerry, Hillary, Gates, Kamala talking about when they say the government should restrict or suppress disinformation?

The government is supposed to be able to control and modify what we hear and see and thus eventually what we believe and do
That’s what it is about

 

[Foxfyre]

The government is supposed to be able to control and modify what we hear and see and thus eventually what we believe and do
That’s what is is about

That is important to a Marxist or fascist or other totalitarian government. I don't think I have seen any Republican, MAGA, Patriot suggest that the government be given authority to dictate what is and is not disinformation.

If any have they are as bad as Harris, Kerry, Hillary, Gates et al.

 

[WEATHER53]

That is important to a Marxist government. I don't think I have seen any Republican, MAGA, Patriot suggest that the government be given authority to dictate what is and is not disinformation.

If any have they are as bad as Harris, Kerry, Hillary, Gates

The misinformation police want to go that way

 

[Marener]

They all say disinformation should not be allowed.

I’ve yet to see anyone say that. Kerry didn’t say it in the WEF clip I’ve seen.

 

[Thunderbird]

The Democratic elites hate free speech.

Opinion: Vance is right. Harris and Walz are a threat to Americans' free speech.

In the vice presidential debate, Tim Walz showed that he and other Democratic leaders need a class in First Amendment law.

www.usatoday.com

We’ve got to boot these authoritarians out of the party.

 

[Foxfyre]

I’ve yet to see anyone say that. Kerry didn’t say it in the WEF clip I’ve seen.

Kerry:
"You know there's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc. But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence, So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you're free to be able to implement change."

Perhaps he didn't mean change the First Amendment. But it's very difficult to believe he did not.

 

[Marener]

Kerry:
"You know there's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc. But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence,

So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you're free to be able to implement change."

You imputed meaning to what he says by “implement change”. Notably ignoring the fact that he says the first amendment prohibits disallowing it.

 

[Foxfyre]

You imputed meaning to what he says by “implement change”. Notably ignoring the fact that he says the first amendment prohibits disallowing it.

Okay I do recommend you along with a lot of others here to sign up for a good remedial reading course.

For those able to still read and comprehend, Kerry did say the First Amendment disallows prohibiting disinformation immediately followed by hoping they get enough votes and take the power to implement change. I don't know how anybody can read that and not realize he is wanting to do away with the First Amendment.

 

[Marener]

Okay I do recommend you along with a lot of others here to sign up for a good remedial reading course.

You’ll have to forgive me for pointing out that you are fabricating language which is not in the statement.

 

[Foxfyre]

You’ll have to forgive me for pointing out that you are fabricating language which is not in the statement.

Just pointing out that he said what he said. You can pretend he didn't say it or didn't mean it probably because you so desperately want to vote for Kamala and the Democrats with a clear conscience, but bright people read intent, not just words. I pray that most will be able to read the intent in the words because our Constitution and America as it is intended to be depend on it.

 

[WEATHER53]

If they have their way we would not be able to talk about the FEMA debacle in NC
Since they would be definitely trying to keep us uninformed they would then stipulate that our criticism and comments were “misinformed” and prohibited
Its where they want to go

 

[Foxfyre]

You’ll have to forgive me for pointing out that you are fabricating language which is not in the statement.

Further you said it is ultimately up to the individual to judge what is and is not disinformation and not the role of those in power to dictate that. I agree with that 100%.

But when you hear/read what Kamala, Kerry, Hillary, Gates et al are saying, it should chill the hearts of every American who values our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the unalienable rights and power to the people that our Founders intended. Because those people I named and many others like them want the power to rule the people whatever it takes, including rewriting the Constitution.

A vote for anyone other than Trump and the Republicans is a vote to give them that power.

 

[eagle7-31]

People need to stop conflating opposition to disinformation with opposition to free speech.

Many (but not all) liberals believe opinions not theirs do not count as free speech.