AOC says that censorship is necessary

I hate to say that I agree with her, cuz I don't really but she does have a point.

Rmember ivermectin being called a horse dewormer by the media. Yeah, it's used for that but a doctor also won the noble prize by using it successfully on humans.

I'm sure we can all point think of things that were taken completely out of context..(bloodbath).. or just blatant lies being told by the media.

Not sure what can be done to stop this sort of thing but it should be discussed. Seeing how British people are being jailed right now is a terrible thing to see and surely that's not what we want.

a reply to: spacedoubt

How should we handle it?

First "WE" have to realize "WE" don't know anything about anything apart
from what "WE" are being told. So "WE" have to wait for the institutions
that "WE" know are lying to finally come clean. Hunter's lap top is one
example that has come to fruition. Noting only because they were
finally forced to admit it. I'm thinking next will be what "WE" know
they know who left a bag of coc aine in the White House. Does anyone
with a brain believe they don't know even tho it's impossible for them
to not know.
My good member refuse to live with lies for the sake of everything you
hold dear.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I hate to say that I agree with her, cuz I don't really but she does have a point.

Rmember ivermectin being called a horse dewormer by the media. Yeah, it's used for that but a doctor also won the noble prize by using it successfully on humans.

I'm sure we can all point think of things that were taken completely out of context..(bloodbath).. or just blatant lies being told by the media.

Not sure what can be done to stop this sort of thing but it should be discussed. Seeing how British people are being jailed right now is a terrible thing to see and surely that's not what we want.

It sure isn't what we would want but, unfortunately, that's what we'd get. It is paramount that every individual be secure in their agency to not only be able to speak freely but, most importantly, think freely.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sure I get that you can ignore it.
However this stuff gets amplified, and often the sources can be dissolved by reiteration on other sites that are Not troll farm targets. There are even “American” news sites that are not American at all. “Looks legit”

How does that get washed back out of the system of information?
Not everyone has discernment, and this is precisely how and why it works.

A different take would be that Florida wants to teach sex-ed without mentioning certain body parts, or mentioning contraception. Would you consider that an impediment to free speech?

She just wants to be like cindi lauper; see your true colours shining through.

a reply to: ColeYounger2

a reply to: spacedoubt

I ask this because it pertains. . .

You'd never give an 11-year-old a firearm to own because that would be irresponsible, correct?

You'd never allow an 11-year-old to purchase tobacco products because that would be irresponsible, correct?

If you agree with that, then what justification would you have for providing adult sexual material to an 11-year-old?

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: network dude

But in this thread, the issue is she is going directly against the first amendment and for some reason, that has become a popular position.

Can you explain who should monitor and decide which speach is allowed? Or do you not agree with her on this point?

Sure, she skirted the the accepted boundaries of free speech by even bringing up this issue of misinformation. Yet, from listening to that recording I did not find that she suggested that it should be her, or anyone specific that should set the boundaries of free speech. What I heard was her saying it needs to be looked into, needs to be addressed. On that I agree with her. Do you?

No, I do not. I actually remember when I raised my right hand and swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Those who didn't serve may not care as much about that document as those who have. Read the 1st amendment, then read it again. See if you can find the clause that allows speech to be regulated if you think it's misinformation, like Hunter's laptop is Russian disinfo or something equally as wrong.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: network dude

In the public discourse. Yes we should allow free speech.

But, here is the dilemma. If someone is knowingly spewing disinformation in order to try to skew an election in a candidates favor. Is that still considered free speech? What if someone is unknowingly or knowingly paid by Russia to spew disinformation. Do we allow that? Where do we draw the line between public discourse and or disinformation/foreign interference?

You mean like when Hunters laptop was hidden away and said to be Russian Disinfo, and because it was censored by the MSM and 51 intel agents, nobody looked into what was there, giving Joe Biden the win, when had folks known, the results would have been different?

Here is the thing. You have the freedom to say whatever you want. You do not have the freedom to be immune from the repercussions of what you say. So as in the case of the laptop, I feel as if it should be investigated, and all those who pushed the lie, should be punished for pushing a lie, and trying to alter the election results. But not because the said something that was a lie, or that I disagreed with. Does that make sense?

originally posted by: spacedoubt
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sure I get that you can ignore it.
However this stuff gets amplified, and often the sources can be dissolved by reiteration on other sites that are Not troll farm targets. There are even “American” news sites that are not American at all. “Looks legit”

How does that get washed back out of the system of information?
Not everyone has discernment, and this is precisely how and why it works.

A different take would be that Florida wants to teach sex-ed without mentioning certain body parts, or mentioning contraception. Would you consider that an impediment to free speech?

Your tangent and off topic comment about sex ed is laughable. Free speech is the ability to say things that others may not agree with. So in the context of a school teaching children about the birds and the bees, they should not be accused of limiting free speech by omitting how to give a BJ, or which position gives the best view of the TV.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If you agree with that, then what justification would you have for providing adult sexual material to an 11-year-old?

How did people figure out sex before sex-ed? I remember the sex ed lady
when I was going to school. Just a short class at that time but she tried
telling the session I was in, that all men have about the same size penis.

I was the first one to bust up and then all the girls giggled to. But I
guess that was the level of stupidity sex-ed was at in 75.

a reply to: spacedoubt

There are constant lies coming out 24/7 from main stream media.

I ignore it.

If you like their lies doesn’t change that they are lies.

They are striving to shut down all discussion so no one can point out their lies.

a reply to: network dude

Read the 1st amendment, then read it again. See if you can find the clause that allows speech to be regulated if you think it's misinformation,

a reply to: network dude

Calm down , it was a question, not a comment.
I think it applies somewhat, because it was something that was taken away.
It used to be taught, and now it’s illegal.

BEFORE YOU POST.
READ THIS....

Important if Actively Posting





Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (Redux)

Community Announcement re: Decorum




These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.


To repeat, those who refuse to "get it" WILL face LENGTHY POSTING BANS!!
YOU are responsible for your own posts





And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: spacedoubt

I ask this because it pertains. . .

You'd never give an 11-year-old a firearm to own because that would be irresponsible, correct?

You'd never allow an 11-year-old to purchase tobacco products because that would be irresponsible, correct?

If you agree with that, then what justification would you have for providing adult sexual material to an 11-year-old?

I had my first firearm at 9, a shotgun.
I still have it. And the rifle I got at 11.
Do you consider sexual education (reproductive biology)
Adult sexual material? I guess that’s the real issue, isn’t it?

originally posted by: spacedoubt

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: spacedoubt

I ask this because it pertains. . .

You'd never give an 11-year-old a firearm to own because that would be irresponsible, correct?

You'd never allow an 11-year-old to purchase tobacco products because that would be irresponsible, correct?

If you agree with that, then what justification would you have for providing adult sexual material to an 11-year-old?

I had my first firearm at 9, a shotgun.
I still have it. And the rifle I got at 11.
Do you consider sexual education (reproductive biology)
Adult sexual material? I guess that’s the real issue, isn’t it?

I'm shocked that they sold them to a child.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
How about we eliminate media sponsored propaganda first???

Aaaand there it is!

Hooray!

See. My favorite thing about America is to tell it to F*ck Off and do Better!”

In no other country is this allowed.

And Dems wanna take that away??!?

See I’m a Classic Liberal meaning I’ll defend your right to stay stupid, offensive, racist sh!t to the death.

Because the moment I or anyone else can determine and dictate what is “too much” is the slipperiest slope you’ve ever seen.

See how that works?

I think there’s a name or two for groups that like to force dissent and vocal opinions to refrain from doing so…..

originally posted by: Astrocometus
a reply to: DBCowboy

If you agree with that, then what justification would you have for providing adult sexual material to an 11-year-old?

How did people figure out sex before sex-ed? I remember the sex ed lady
when I was going to school. Just a short class at that time but she tried
telling the session I was in, that all men have about the same size penis.

I was the first one to bust up and then all the girls giggled to. But I
guess that was the level of stupidity sex-ed was at in 75.

My parents gave me a book, from the 50s, it was the late 70s.
I told them I already knew all that, that was in the book.

I think there could be an issue because of the possibility of prudish Victorianism returning.
Where it’s all so embarrassing to talk about, that parents won’t.
So the kids, as you said , have to figure it out. In the age of “online hookups”.

originally posted by: spacedoubt

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: spacedoubt

I ask this because it pertains. . .

You'd never give an 11-year-old a firearm to own because that would be irresponsible, correct?

You'd never allow an 11-year-old to purchase tobacco products because that would be irresponsible, correct?

If you agree with that, then what justification would you have for providing adult sexual material to an 11-year-old?

I had my first firearm at 9, a shotgun.
I still have it. And the rifle I got at 11.
Do you consider sexual education (reproductive biology)
Adult sexual material? I guess that’s the real issue, isn’t it?

How about sexual material at all?

Reproductive information is a euphemism for what is being shared in classrooms now.

I mean do you think in CA schools should be able to keep the gender identity of students hidden? Is this low just?

Or how about letting 5 year olds change their sex with surgery.

How about dropping the dime to CPS when the parents disagree with the child’s stance?

But yeah.

Guns, alcohol, tobacco, voting, tattoos, and Free Speech are the real issues.