Is the new Disinformation Governance Board constitutional? (Poll)

[ThunderKiss1965]

Will Republicans fight it or let it stay so they can abuse it when idiot Democrats lose power?

I don't want any Government bureaucrat controlling speech no matter which side they come from.

 

[kyzr]

1) Show me where in the Constitution it says that Presidents are allowed to breathe. Or go to the bathroom. Or sleep.
Doesn't say it.
The Constitution is not required to tell the government everything it can and can't do on a micromanagement level.
2) This isn't censorship. Censorship is STOPPING other people saying things. They're not doing this. They're merely saying that something that has been said probably isn't the truth. This happens ALL THE TIME, especially in court.

The courts will shutdown the unconstitutional "Truth Czar".
Free speech is in the constitution. Censorship is not. Censorship is stopping people from seeing the free speech of others. We know how biased the Truth Czar is already, she's a democrat shill who lies her ass off all the time.

 

[kyzr]

It just shows how ignorant you and other Trump supporters are.

Good post! Way to prove absolutely nothing. Moron.

 

[Briss]

The government does not grant rights; it protects our rights; it does not determine which rights will be protected, or to what extent they will be protected.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The courts will shutdown the unconstitutional "Truth Czar".
Free speech is in the constitution. Censorship is not. Censorship is stopping people from seeing the free speech of others. We know how biased the Truth Czar is already, she's a democrat shill who lies her ass off all the time.

And where's the censorship here?

 

[LuckyDuck]

The US is supposed have a "free press". The press are supposed to be publishers of truth.

I missed the part in the US Constitution where the Federal Government was given the Power to control "The Truth".

Lauren Boebert leads effort to defund Biden Administration's 'disinformation' board

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., has authored legislation to shut down a new Department of Homeland Security board designed to police misinformation.

www.foxnews.com

Disinformation Governance Board - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So I'm questioning the constitutionality of the new "Disinformation Governance Board". Is it constitutional?

There was a court case some years ago (sorry, but I don't remember the case or the details). Fox news wanted two reporters to change the story the reporters investigated, to fit the station's narrative. The judge ruled against the reporters, citing the freedom of speech and that news media had no legal requirement to "tell the truth." There was no higher expectation for reporters to get stories accurate than your average person in the street.
So, whether it's the left or right in politics, don't expect everything that is said, to be literally true.
It's kind of sad in a way. Perhaps there should be an Amendment to the Constitution that would require news media agencies to only print and report stories accurately and definitely truthfully.
Regardless of whether an agency is created by the left or the right, the politicians on that side would be creating something that is not only unconstitutional, but also Orwellian, in that it would simply declare any topics coming from political opponents, as being "disinformation" and even monitoring opposing politicians upcoming stories and squelching them ahead of their release and using the power of the ruling party to punish those that would attempt to complain against that power. Thus would end the U.S. Constitutions Bill of Rights.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The person that will fight it is the first person they fuck over. Every plaintiff lawyer in the country will be begging to take a case that will assuredly end up at SCOUS. They would be the only one with standing.

.

SCOUS? You mean SCOTUS?

 

[Briss]

The judge ruled against the reporters, citing the freedom of speech and that news media had no legal requirement to "tell the truth."

It seems that news agencies should be required to include a disclaimer at the beginning of their broadcasts indicating that they "are under no legal obligation to present you with accurate information."

 

[Orangecat]

We agree on that one seeing this is another tool the dumb fucking left will create and then get abused by the opposition party while they proclaim they never thought that would happen…

That seems to be a recurring truth with the dims and their shortsighted attempts to change rules when their agenda is failing. Yet they keep trying it, and the results bite them in the ass. The definition of madness, that.

 

[OKTexas]

SCOUS? You mean SCOTUS?

I started to point out a mistake you made a couple of days ago, but chose not to be an ASS. An urge you can't seem to resist. FOAD ASS.

.

 

[woodwork201]

Will Republicans fight it or let it stay so they can abuse it when idiot Democrats lose power?

DeSantis is only complaining about who's running the board, not about the existence of the board. That's pretty much how it is for all the Republican leadership.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

DeSantis is only complaining about who's running the board, not about the existence of the board. That's pretty much how it is for all the Republican leadership.

Well considering the same group proposing it proposes to run it as well they are pretty much one and the same.

It will be gone as soon as another republican president is elected if it is created.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

I started to point out a mistake you made a couple of days ago, but chose not to be an ASS. An urge you can't seem to resist. FOAD ASS.

.

It's pretty well all he has.

 

[woodwork201]

SCOUS? You mean SCOTUS?

Great work; you nailed another typo! How many hours do you spend searching for each typo you get to call out?

I guess it beats providing actual content or value.

 

[Mac1958]

And where's the censorship here?

I'm still not finding a lot of clarity on exactly what this thing is or what it can do. That doesn't matter to the wingers, though. They're just assuming the worst and running with it.

For the zillionth time, they're being handed a gift. I can certainly understand and agree with concern that this thing could easily go too far, depending on what it actually is. But the way this news came out, with all kinds of vagueness, plays right into the hands of those who want to scare and enrage each other.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

[Mac1958]

If anyone here has specifics on this thing, please post them.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

If anyone here has specifics on this thing, please post them.

They haven't given any, just that it's specifically supposed to address, "disinformation" relating to BP and ICE issues.

Going too far is giving the gov't the power to regulate speech which is specifically what they are doing here.,

 

[Mac1958]

Going too far is giving the gov't the power to regulate speech which is specifically what they are doing here.,

Link?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Link?

That's what the disinformation bureau is supposed to do, decide what is/isn't disinformation.

 

[Mac1958]

That's what the disinformation bureau is supposed to do, decide what is/isn't disinformation.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see. Because I'm looking for specifics and haven't found any. Just assumptions, extrapolations, anger and attacks.