AOC says that censorship is necessary

originally posted by: Shoshanna
a reply to: pianopraze

I am tired of these people just assuming everyone is stupid. Like....ok isn't it my responsibility to determine what I believe and whether I believe so-called disinformation? I mean everyone's definition of disinformation is different, right?

Why do they think we can't figure out what's real and what's not? I think they're just hoping we can't for when they unleash Project Bluebeam.

Yeah, it's like they're deliberately trying to deny people their right to exercise free expression by deliberately preventing you from seeing something you would have an opinion about! 😃

a reply to: spacedoubt

What if we know that information is Russian sourced from known entities ?
Troll farms for example. Specifically designed to cause informational disarray(?
How should we handle it?

I read some of the other responses to this question. They seemed inadequate.

So:
1) The DOJ should make indictments against the known entities.

2) DOJ should inform the passers on of foreign propaganda.

3) DOJ should encourage media and internet social media to: a) remove material, b) or make a disclaimer or correction.

4) DOJ should make a public announcement about the indictments, and name to the public the known outlets of foreign propaganda.

That's pretty much what the AG has done recently.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I’m not sure what you think I said or which posted reply you’re responding to. And yeah most of what i say on ATS IS BS.

But yeah, I don’t agree with AOC. Or anyone that suggests this is a good thing. At all. Not one iota.

Free Speech FTW!

And to your point and this whole election season in general is one of my new favorite quotes;

“The truth does not require your participation. BS does.”

originally posted by: FullHeathen
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,

Consequences for lying under oath have nothing to do with just lying to people. That may come with a court case due to the damage that lie you told had. So the Russia Russia Russia lie is an example of a lie causing massive amounts of damage and civil cases will be the way to proceed unless a specific law has been violated also such as fraud.

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

That’s what you asked me.
Someone have a gun to a kid, me.
Four guns total if you count the Daisy and the 22 semi.

originally posted by: spacedoubt

originally posted by: Justoneman

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?

So CNN, FOX, CBS and ABC are still here and you will notice most of those, including FOX sometimes, are actually full of commie ideas.

Should we ban News agencies we have proof they lied?

Which one is the commiest?
And how do you define a commie idea?
Healthcare? Taking care of veterans?
Public education? Fixing infrastructure?
Taxing billionaires at a rate equal to middle class rates,
Unions that don’t let employers walk all over workers?

Oh it is a tie with all but FOX who have hired a few conservatives with their RINO's from the two Bush offices.

FOX I see does the subtle stuff since they have MAGA watching, but they have the haters on too. Gutfeld's show is the one to get all kinds of opinions based on the stories of the day from varied points like Kat Timpf the Libertarian and my fav Tyrus.

a reply to: Justoneman

But the question was: "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"

That clause does not exist. But Article 1, section 8 gives Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers and other powers vested in it.

See: 18 U.S. Code § 1621 and 28 U.S. Code § 1746
--------------------------

Russia Russia Russia

I actually read the Mueller report. I did not rely on AG Barr's mischaracterization of it (you know, lies).

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Shoshanna
a reply to: pianopraze

I am tired of these people just assuming everyone is stupid. Like....ok isn't it my responsibility to determine what I believe and whether I believe so-called disinformation? I mean everyone's definition of disinformation is different, right?

Why do they think we can't figure out what's real and what's not? I think they're just hoping we can't for when they unleash Project Bluebeam.

Yeah, it's like they're deliberately trying to deny people their right to exercise free expression by deliberately preventing you from seeing something you would have an opinion about! 😃

Yes, this is what Spacedoubt is sidestepping.

Current left as opposed to hippy left of my youth, want total control.

Over what you say such as AOC here.

Over what you do, as in bake cake with their creeds.

Even over what you think as FBI is checking on people posting their thoughts on Twitter here… hell they are arresting people in other countries for LIKING SILLY POSTS.

If AOC gets here way they will try to bring that here.

The Worst Part of all that is that People will Reelect her.
Way too many in this country Vote for Party Alone and not the Candidate.
it's a real shame that the US has come to this Point.

originally posted by: marg6043
She wants censorship because AOC is a marxist, just like most democrat politicians, plus she wants to make sure that her voters doesn't knows what kind of failure she is.

Hell she does not want the rest of the nation to know her failures.

NYC neighborhood in AOC’s district blasted as ‘third world’ conditions with illegal vendors, prostitution on streets

nypost.com...

AOC’s district saw 57% increase in major crimes under tenure

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

NYC residents in AOC's district furious over 'unbearable' migrant crisis, crime: She 'abandoned' us
Rachel Campos-Duffy tours AOC's district to speak with residents about 'unbearable' conditions

www.foxnews.com...

AOC shouted down during chaotic NYC town hall: ‘You’re a piece of s–t!’

nypost.com...

No wonder she wants censorship.

a reply to: bluesman023

It sounds like the people in AOC's district like what she's brought down on them. Not a single petition for her removal has been circulated, AFAIK.

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

DIDJA MISS IT????

PROPAGANDA...for CRIPES SAKES!!!

DIDJA MISS IT??? WTF, People?????

YOU are being MIS-led!!!

JEEZUS!!!

CAN'T YOU SEE???

a reply to: pianopraze

Hey, I’m not sidestepping, I’m not even that coordinated.
I think I might just be asking hard questions.
Or at least proving things are not “arms crossed, foot stomping” black and white.
There are more subtle components, that come into play when someone just says.
“That’s the way it is dammit”

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Taking a different perspective of the issues at hand is not Misinformation . It may not be the widely excepted Narrative but it's certainly not Misinformation just because it's damaging to the other side.

And once more, I agree completely with this. I think that a lot of the problem here is not the mounting of a different perspective, but rather the assertion that it IS the correct perspective.

If you read enough of my posts, you will find a preponderance of comments that include the phrase ''I think''. That and ''maybe this'' and ''if this''. I"m not always successful in this like when i call Trump (insert any pejorative here) instead of saying I think Trump is (do it again).

As for the media networks opinionating instead of just reporting the news, well, it is said that there was a time. A time before leaders of both parties decided to unscrew the restrictions that were placed on them way back when the airwaves were considered to be public airwaves and the emerging businesses of radio and television needed to be held to standards that were established for the common good. Yes, both Democrat and Republican administrations put those safeguards in the ground.

a reply to: spacedoubt

Like the joke

I’m libertarian, all grey to me.

But do you agree with my premise the left of the 70’s soooo into freedom and anti censorship is now the party of censorship?

Where have these lefties gone?

The problem is I was talking about the consequences of lying being different based on the courtroom setting.


Deflection is what Commies do.

originally posted by: FullHeathen
a reply to: Justoneman

But the question was: "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"

That clause does not exist. But Article 1, section 8 gives Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers and other powers vested in it.

See: 18 U.S. Code § 1621 and 28 U.S. Code § 1746
--------------------------

Russia Russia Russia

I actually read the Mueller report. I did not rely on AG Barr's mischaracterization of it (you know, lies).

originally posted by: spacedoubt
a reply to: pianopraze

Hey, I’m not sidestepping, I’m not even that coordinated.
I think I might just be asking hard questions.
Or at least proving things are not “arms crossed, foot stomping” black and white.
There are more subtle components, that come into play when someone just says.
“That’s the way it is dammit”

Freedom of Speech is one of the 5 pillars of the 1st Amendment. It’s right there at the beginning. #1.

It’s pretty back and white.

“That’s just the way it is damnit.”

Now keep defending folks that want to debate, curtail, infringe, deny, or obfuscate this point.

Next?

Will they elect her or will the Dems just write her name down as the winner "shutup and sit down".

originally posted by: bluesman023
The Worst Part of all that is that People will Reelect her.
Way too many in this country Vote for Party Alone and not the Candidate.
it's a real shame that the US has come to this Point.

originally posted by: marg6043
She wants censorship because AOC is a marxist, just like most democrat politicians, plus she wants to make sure that her voters doesn't knows what kind of failure she is.

Hell she does not want the rest of the nation to know her failures.

NYC neighborhood in AOC’s district blasted as ‘third world’ conditions with illegal vendors, prostitution on streets

nypost.com...

AOC’s district saw 57% increase in major crimes under tenure

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

NYC residents in AOC's district furious over 'unbearable' migrant crisis, crime: She 'abandoned' us
Rachel Campos-Duffy tours AOC's district to speak with residents about 'unbearable' conditions

www.foxnews.com...

AOC shouted down during chaotic NYC town hall: ‘You’re a piece of s–t!’

nypost.com...

No wonder she wants censorship.

The problem with any misinformation judgement, is that yesterday's facts turn into today's misinformation and vice versa.

If you have been around a few years, everything from medical to historical "facts" have toggled from one side to the other. This is the best thing for your heart. That didn't actually happen that way. etc. etc.

Legislating it or censoring it by the "Ministry of Truth" of the the day/party, only leads to fewer people able to sift through the rubbish and make informed decisions and the "Truth" being controlled by the party of the day.

Misinformation is part of the freedom of speech that you get with the rest of the freedoms. Just like "hate speech", it's protected to prevent the party of the day from deciding that your speech is hate speech etc. You simply can't remove one without removing the freedom.

Anyone who is for censorship needs to think for a minute about one day when the political slant might not be in your favor. Stating that homosexuality is "natural" couid get you censored for misinformation. Blaspheming the divine could be considered hate speech.

Consider now that it is good that both of those things are protected in nearly absolute terms.