• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Disinformation Board to Tackle Russia, Migrant Smugglers

The republicans don't want to counter Russian disinformation.

What the hell happened to the Republican party?
They are bought and paid for.
 
Everything righties accuse others of doing, they do or enable themselves. Every single thing.
This move is tone deaf, if nothing else.
 
ROTFLMAO!!!!

The left actually believes that these sites like politifact, factcheck, snopes, and even facebook, which are a hive of LIBERAL moderators and fact checker are not unbiased in their reporting LOL.

Thank you for making my point.
Of course facebook is not factual. So where do you get your news..FOX, OAN, and Newsmax?
 
Of course facebook is not factual. So where do you get your news..FOX, OAN, and Newsmax?
Don't even know what the last two are which you mentioned. And the only shows on Fox I watch are The Five (just the A and B blocks) and sometimes Greg Gutfeld. That's it.

I actually listen to more of Joe Rogan (a liberal progressive) than anything on TV.
 
This seems like the right additude from the new director:

:unsure:



 
Don't even know what the last two are which you mentioned. And the only shows on Fox I watch are The Five (just the A and B blocks) and sometimes Greg Gutfeld. That's it.

I actually listen to more of Joe Rogan (a liberal progressive) than anything on TV.
So where do you get your disinformation? From a radio talk show host?
 
Are you saying Russian disinformation shouldn't be countered?
Why isn't in the State Dept then? And why is it called a GOVERANCE board?
 
So you are fine with disinformation?
Yes. I'm fully intelligent enough to do my own research. Aren't you? I do not want everyone to be beholden to censorship just because some other people might say something that isn't accurate. Having a wrong opinion is not perfectly fine. Twitter, for example, should be a platform for open ideas and robust debate. They shouldn't rig the debate by blocking opinions or facts they don't like. Likewise, there should be solid discourse within America without the government stepping in to give their views and Homeland Security getting involved if someone says something they don't like. The whole point of a hyper-partisan Homeland Security Czar who will run around the country looking for speech she doesn't like and then attempt to chill that speech is pretty insane. Is making this ridiculous individual a Homeland Security "Czar" really necessary? How did this work out for Russia and why do you want the Biden administration to follow in their example on this?

Are you also fine with yelling fire in a crowded theater?
It's not a matter of being fine with any particular speech, but rather the belief that we need to protect speech. The only speech worth protecting is the speech people want to censor or chill. The argument of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a very commonly misunderstood part of free speech in America, so it's typically not a good example since most people who use it don't know what they're talking about.
 
Last edited:
A literal "Ministry of 'Truth'". They are not even trying to hide it anymore.

I suppose if they limit themselves to threats from foreign entities, such that its a direct security threat to our liberty, then Im not opposed to it. However, we need to keep a tight leash.
 
There is no open border.

That is exactly the type of disinformation that needs to be countered.
Then how are illegal aliens crossing our border?
 
I suppose if they limit themselves to threats from foreign entities, such that its a direct security threat to our liberty, then Im not opposed to it. However, we need to keep a tight leash.
We already have all the govt we need, don't give in to compromise.
 
So you are fine with disinformation?

Are you also fine with yelling fire in a crowded theater?
Show us that yelling fire in a crowded theater has been a problem.
 
Show us that yelling fire in a crowded theater has been a problem.
I don't know if it has been.

Probably not in modern times anyway, but you missed the point. It is the classic example of the reasonable limits on speech.
 
Yes. I'm fully intelligent enough to do my own research. Aren't you? I do not want everyone to be beholden to censorship just because some other people might say something that isn't accurate. Having a wrong opinion is not perfectly fine. Twitter, for example, should be a platform for open ideas and robust debate. They shouldn't rig the debate by blocking opinions or facts they don't like. Likewise, there should be solid discourse within America without the government stepping in to give their views and Homeland Security getting involved if someone says something they don't like. The whole point of a hyper-partisan Homeland Security Czar who will run around the country looking for speech she doesn't like and then attempt to chill that speech is pretty insane. Is making this ridiculous individual a Homeland Security "Czar" really necessary? How did this work out for Russia and why do you want the Biden administration to follow in their example on this?


It's not a matter of being fine with any particular speech, but rather the belief that we need to protect speech. The only speech worth protecting is the speech people want to censor or chill. The argument of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a very commonly misunderstood part of free speech in America, so it's typically not a good example since most people who use it don't know what they're talking about.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example of a reasonable limit on speech.
 
Nothing, it's an excuse for bureaucracy to counter political opponents.

Like I said, tight leash. I dont have a problem with them countering propaganda efforts from foreign actors intending to do harm. Thats their job.
 
I don't know if it has been.

Probably not in modern times anyway, but you missed the point. It is the classic example of the reasonable limits on speech.
It's a make-believe example, to show that Freedom of Speech can be censored, that from one could think of an infinite number of excuses to censor most anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom