The end of free speech - Prez Appoints Speech Police Czar

On the first thing, I guess Obama has a right too to have people represent him in online forums etc. .

On the rest, we will see if it is about preventing illegal downloads or about indeed discoraging people to engage in controversial discussions online.

The internet is a real threat to tptb, to a certain extend. If the people will turn their back on the mass media en mass, then an important pillar of their power structure goes, propaganda.

reply to post by here4awhile


I suspect he forgot to push the sarcasm button, by which that would have been labeled as such.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Do you not have a voice? Are you not an American?

If you answered yes to both you still have free speech.

Hook, line, sinker, SUNK!

I don't understand what you're saying. By answering yes to a negative we are stating that yes we do not? Or by answering no we are saying... what? Can I have a different question, please?

By answering yes to either means your freedom of speech is still alive. A Czar's purpose is to carry out the task given to them meaning to watch where free speech abuses are taking place and to be Federally deputized to step in to correct said actions. This office is charged with the protection of free speech because it is a cornerstone of our nation and democracy.

reply to post by Kali74


didn't the SS cross the pond to harass some kid for exercising his right to free speech?
that's taking a thin skin too far IMO

in answer to your earlier question:
among other things,yes.

and what's free speech got to do with speaking ill of KingOreo? [other than he is trying to restrict/abolish it?]

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

By answering yes to either means your freedom of speech is still alive. A Czar's purpose is to carry out the task given to them meaning to watch where free speech abuses are taking place and to be Federally deputized to step in to correct said actions. This office is charged with the protection of free speech because it is a cornerstone of our nation and democracy.

"By answering yes to either means your freedom of speech is still alive."

nope my freedom of speech isn't contingent on
any arbitrary definitions/conditions you or anybody wants to propose

"A Czar's purpose.."
A Czar's [Tsar]

The title Tsar is derived from the Latin word for emperor, Caesar.[5] In comparison to the corresponding Latin word "imperator", the Byzantine Greek term basileus was used differently depending on whether it was in a contemporary political context and in a historical or Biblical context. In the history of the Greek language, the word had originally meant something like "potentate", it had gradually approached the meaning of "king" in the Hellenistic Period, and it came to designate "emperor" after the inception in the Roman Empire. As a consequence, Byzantine sources continued to call the Biblical and ancient kings "basileus", even when that word had come to mean "emperor" when referring to contemporary monarchs (while it was never applied to Western European kings, whose title was transliterated from Latin "rex" as ῥήξ, or to other monarchs, for whom designations such as ἄρχων "leader", "chieftain" were used.) As the Greek "basileus" was consistently rendered as "tsar" in Slavonic translations of Greek texts, the dual meaning was transferred into Church Slavonic. Thus, "tsar" was not only used as an equivalent of Latin "imperator" (in reference to the rulers of the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire and to native rulers) but was also used to refer to Biblical rulers and ancient kings. From this ambiguity, the development has moved in different directions in the different Slavic languages. Thus, the Bulgarian language and Russian language no longer use tsar as an equivalent of the term emperor/imperator as it exists in the West European (Latin) tradition. Currently, the term tsar refers to native sovereigns, ancient and Biblical rulers, as well as monarchs in fairy tales and the like. The title of king (Russian korol' , Bulgarian kral) is perceived as alien and is reserved for (West) European royalty (and, by extension, for those modern monarchs outside of Europe whose titles are translated as king in English, roi in French etc.). Foreign monarchs of imperial status, both inside and outside of Europe, ancient as well as modern, are generally called imperator (император), rather than tsar

whatever, czars have no place in our republic [USA is not a democracy]


" free speech abuses..."

no such animal. if nazis can parade in the streets and hold their heads up high, then i can say what i want,when i want,were i want and about who i want. period.


"and to be Federally deputized to step in to correct said actions."

LOL let him try and shut me up and i will show him the back of my hand.


"This office is charged with the protection of free speech because it is a cornerstone of our nation and democracy."

like that Vietnamese village: "we had to destroy them in order to save them" back when uncle sam was protecting democracy over there.


oh look somebodies handing out agent-orange flavor kool-aid!!!

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


The fact that we all are still able to post to sites like this is a testament to the fact that Free Speech Will Never Die!

From what I read, the articles were about Obama hiring someone to post favorable things about him and squash the negative. Basically an online campaign manager.

No one is getting fined or going to jail. No one is having their rights taken away. Birther threads will live a healthy life until Obama is gone. That I am sure of.

The rest was Europe guarding agaist privacy and copyright laws.

Did we read the same articles?

Originally posted by spinalremain
Basically an online campaign manager...

...who is being funded with tax-payer money.

Read: That's not okay.

I agree with you.

What I do not agree with is the accusation of Americans losing their freedom of speech or there being a Czar. Those are simply outlandish claims with zero accuracy.

reply to post by spinalremain


You're the most level-headed person on this thread.

Between the hyperbole of the term 'czar' and the free speech nonsense...

Headline: Obama Appoints 'Gift Czar' to Give Gifts to Sick Children.
Internet response: There shouldn't be czar's in our republic! I don't want gifts going to illegals! He's infringing on my right to free speech because I don't like the gifts he's giving!

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Tonosama

 

K so he can respond everywhere BUT the internet?

I have not once said that the president cannot speak out against his detractors nor have I ever said he is restricted in the medium in which he chooses to get his message out. Never, ever, not once have I even hinted at that.

I have said that the president has appointed someone to go after people who say things about him he doesn't like. That this is in effect the creation of a ministry of propaganda seen in banana republics. That this person(s), using the power of the whitehouse, will go after and quash dissenting speech by claiming it "false" and then use that power to scare the bajeezus out of others who may wish to post something negative (ATS Anyone?) about what those in power are doing.

Not once have you even attempted to debate this with anything other than flippant one-liners. I apologize but I am going to have to ignore your further vacuous one-liners.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by Kali74

 

didn't the SS cross the pond to harass some kid for exercising his right to free speech?
that's taking a thin skin too far IMO

in answer to your earlier question:
among other things,yes.

and what's free speech got to do with speaking ill of KingOreo? [other than he is trying to restrict/abolish it?]

King "Oreo"...are you serious? Please tell me HOW our President having a staffer to RESPOND to online questions and stories is taking away anyones right to talk smack about whomever they choose including our President?

reply to post by Tonosama


I promise you that next month, next year and after he has won his second election that there will not be one less blog, one less forum, one less video dedicated to hating the President than there was before this appointment. I apologize for my one liners but I am only human and once in a while something like this that is baseless in accusation will get the better of me.

Originally posted by Kaploink

Originally posted by Tonosama


This new appointee is specifically to STOP people from publishing things, or saying things, or doing things, that they don't like. This is designed as repression of speech, not an office of spirited debate.

From what I have seen, the position's purpose is to be more aggressive in countering false claims. it does not prevent or stop people from expressing their free speech. You can still say almost anything you like except things like yelling fire in a crowded theater, but thats rather obvious.

Now, I do wonder if the blow up about this is the fact that spreading false rumors is a rather valuable political tool. Having the target of such rumors aggressively countering them might reduce their effectiveness.

edit on 24-5-2011 by Kaploink because: (no reason given)

And who is to be the "decider" about what is false? This political appointee? So, if someone were to post something about how the US, France and Britain just attacked Libya for oil (www.abovetopsecret.com... www.abovetopsecret.com... ) and Mr. Politburo decides this is false info because his boss says that it is to prevent genocide, what then? Mr. Politburo is correct and he gets to.... what? Shut down the offending website (Hello ATS) in the manner that the feds are shutting down "piracy" websites by the hundreds? No warrant, no judge, no jury, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

On top of that this will create fear. What if you really believe something that isn't the governments story, such as 9/11 being an inside job (www.abovetopsecret.com...) and Mr. Politburo doesn't like this "false" message. Out he comes with the big guns.

Next thing you know people will be too afraid to post what they think, no matter how "false" or zaney it may be. In this case the facists will have won because they will have squashed all forms of public dissent via "fairness" and making sure no one publishes or says anything "false".

Obviously they couldn't make this office the "office of squashing freedom of speech" run by secretary "shut your mouth". They have to make it sound legit. That way they can spoon feed people their repression little-by-little until one day they wake up and realize the very rights they held dear, the ones that were "protected" by this wonderful new person who would ensure no one said mean and nasty thing, the ones that the US was founded on, are gone.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by Ex_CT2

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Do you not have a voice? Are you not an American?

If you answered yes to both you still have free speech.

Hook, line, sinker, SUNK!

I don't understand what you're saying. By answering yes to a negative we are stating that yes we do not? Or by answering no we are saying... what? Can I have a different question, please?

By answering yes to either means your freedom of speech is still alive. A Czar's purpose is to carry out the task given to them meaning to watch where free speech abuses are taking place and to be Federally deputized to step in to correct said actions. This office is charged with the protection of free speech because it is a cornerstone of our nation and democracy.

edit on 24-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Should be "Thedellusional1".

Free speech needs no political appointee to ensure free speech. The statement is so patently absurd I am not certain as to whether or not your are being facetious or not.

Originally posted by spinalremain
From what I read, the articles were about Obama hiring someone to post favorable things about him and squash the negative. Basically an online campaign manager.

No one is getting fined or going to jail. No one is having their rights taken away. Birther threads will live a healthy life until Obama is gone. That I am sure of.

The rest was Europe guarding agaist privacy and copyright laws.

Did we read the same articles?

Yes. And they have a nice warm and touchy feel like how the TSA is molesting me for my "safety".

Sure, the French Prez wants to guard against piracy and copyright violations by getting the biggest names in the internet together and telling them that in order for them to remain economically viable they need to abide by the government's "red line". That they want to protect the internet by further regulating it. I suppose it is like TheDelusional1 who said that we need a speech czar to protect free speech.

The internet needs to regulation by politicians to protect the internet
Speech needs to regulation by politicians to protect free speech

The internet works because it is unregulated and if the companies cannot find a way to get their product out in the new medium that is their own fault. The agenda has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with planting the seeds of regulation of the internet as part of a further curtailment of free speech. Sarkozy even references the uprisings in the middle east and talks about how great that is but how gov still needs to regulate the internet for the economy's sake.

What he is really saying is that all these "leaders" are scared #-less that their government is next (especially the french, just look at the protests right now www.abovetopsecret.com...). They want to "regulate" the internet in order to "regulate" speech. This is all in line with what the US Customs people are doing with domain seizures. Sure, it is just fine in the general public's mind because they are doing it to "bad guys". Ones that are generally assumed to be bad anyhow. That is just the start.

Take the "regulation" proposed at the eG8, mix in a little "free speech" regulations, add a little domain seizure and pretty soon you have a whole new tyranny on the internet.

The worlds leaders can't stand the internet and the free flow of information. They can't control blogs, tweets, ATS and ATS-like sites as it stands today. If they can "regulate" it and appoint someone to get rid of all the "unfair" nasties out there then the world will be a better place, for them.

Come on...who wouldn't listen to this guy?!!

You're kidding, right? Chill out. This position will deal with online marketing and social media in order to most effectively use sites like Facebook and Twitter and to combat things like "Google bombing."

The terms Google bomb and Googlewashing refer to practices intended to influence the ranking of particular pages in results returned by the Google search engine, in order to increase the likelihood of people finding and clicking on selections in which the individual or other entity engaging in this practice is interested. It is done for either business, political, or comedic purposes (or a combination of the latter two).

Source: Wikipedia Entry for "Google bomb"

During his 2006 re-election bid, then Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA ) was the victim of a very successful Google-bombing campaign engineered and begun by journalist Dan Savage, which is still working very effectively today. You can click the link below to see the search results you get when you Google the words "Rick Santorum." Note the first result in the list.

Rick Santorum Google Search Results

Poor, poor Rick! See how things can get away from you really fast if you don't watch out for online attacks? The new Director of Progressive Media and Online Response position Obama has created will keep an eye on the 'Net so things like this can be dealt with quickly by his campaign staff. Don't be so paranoid. Okay?

Originally posted by dalloway
You're kidding, right? Chill out. This position will deal with online marketing and social media in order to most effectively use sites like Facebook and Twitter and to combat things like "Google bombing."

If that is the sole purpose of this person, which I doubt, then why is he being funded with taxpayer funds? About half of the USSA didn't vote for this guy, why are they being required to fund his reelection?

reply to post by Kali74


well now...

how about you harassing me and flaming me here and now on this thread?

you sound like your angling for the job yourself.

we all know how things quiet down when a mod shows up and calls posters to task
imagine if the mods could:
cut off your internet, send armed thugs to your house,etc.


"...Kneel down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you..."


and i'll say what i want

nothing you, kingoreo,[or prince shrub, "robber" baron prick & baroness prick [current real 1st lady], or king shrub, for that matter]
or his gorillas in suits gonna do about it.