And yet they do it regularly
well we have libel and slander laws but that does not address all of it.
Is it time to re-think free speech?
- Thread starter BartenderElite
- Start date
And yet they do it regularly
well we have libel and slander laws but that does not address all of it.
I think a possible answer is to enforce free speech.
the problem currently is that there is honest disagreement regarding what "the truth" is.
you do not solve that by arbitrarily picking one side to publish.
this is, of course, not even remotely new but it is faster given advances in communication.
truth will eventually find its way to the surface but only if speech remains free.
the problem currently is that there is honest disagreement regarding what "the truth" is.
you do not solve that by arbitrarily picking one side to publish.
this is, of course, not even remotely new but it is faster given advances in communication.
truth will eventually find its way to the surface but only if speech remains free.
The question is why do people want to spread harmful misinformation?
a. they do not view it as harmful or misinformation
b. because it suits a larger agenda
c. disagreement does not necessarily = harmful or misinformation
d. its fun
a. If they don't, then they're dumb as a bell
b. For who?
c. Correct. However spreading misinformation is harmful
d. Fun for trolls perhaps
a. misinformation is simply incorrect but that can go two different ways. it could be that "conventional wisdom" is incorrect and so it "appears" to be misinformation or it could be specifically intended to misinform and is known to be incorrect. you are assuming that only one of these is the case.
b. the supplier of said information. since this is nearly always for political purposes, that teams chosen stance.
c. its either a tactic or a response depending on whose team the viewer is on.
d. triggering the triggerable can be fun.
a. Conventional wisdom such as drinking urine to kill COVID.
b. Like Fox News, correct.
c. A tactic that can injure people.
d. Only if they're triggerable. Trolls here on JPP think they're triggering posters.
a. Conventional wisdom such as drinking urine to kill COVID.
b. Like Fox News, correct.
c. A tactic that can injure people.
d. Only if they're triggerable. Trolls here on JPP think they're triggering posters.
as you constantly demonstrate, including these posts, yes you trigger very predictable.
since you refuse to have a serious conversation I've had enough of this one.
Triggered by truth aren't you?
In the past there were many restrictions which have since been struck down by the courts. Things like inciting a riot have been interpreted so narrowly as to make it very difficult to prosecute. Today, we can advocate anything while previously you could not advocate overthrow of the government by force, there were restrictions on communists and socialists or calling people to resist the military draft. Today laws against obscenities are basically dead.
For an interesting case see Cohen v. California about a guy who walked into a courthouse with a T-shirt that said "Fuck the draft."
Such fabrications occurred since the early days of the republic. Jefferson hired a journalist to plant stories in the paper about his opponent.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I don’t think that’s necessary. I think Social Media should be regulated so that they are required to identify the source of propaganda and disinformation posted on their system. More importantly Citizens United must be over turned.
I will never believe a corporation is a person until the State of Texas executes one of them.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
One who believes in free speech and real liberals would never start a thread like this.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
I agree with 1/2 of that. Citizens United should be overturned. Doubtful it will happen during the Biden/Harris regime.
Without checking, I'd bet Biden voted all kinds of for Citizens United. No doubt he was one who voted on it.
One example of this happening was when the city denied a permit to speak to a man who traveled around making anti-Jewish speeches. Everywhere he spoke a disturbance occurred among the man's supporters and opponents attending the speech. The city denied the permit because of likely violence.
The court ruled the action an unconstitutional violation of free speech. The permit informed the city where and when the man would speak and it was their responsibility to provide adequate police protection.
When a man wanting to make anti-Jewish speeches in NYC the police commissioner was Teddy Roosevelt who assigned a Jewish officers to protect the man.
The first Amendment says government cannot restrict free speech. That means it cannot limit the speech of individuals, organizations, corporations, etc. Citizens United allows more free speech by allowing all groups to express their views.
Nobody voted for Citizens United except the Supreme Court Justices. We don't need government telling us how to spend our money.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Bribery is not free speech.
Spending money on advertising ideas is not bribery--it is speech.