Government prevention of misinformation, and a question for progressives

[HumblePi]

You know how free speech can be abused and weaponized- sort of in the classic example of someone yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater? That's kind of what the right is doing with all the lying, trolling, and gaslighting. I don't know if it has already crossed the line, but if not, it is really right on it.

There really have to be consequences to undermining and trying to discredit the recommendations of every single medical organization on the planet during a deadly pandemic, or just all the nonstop lying anytime one of your candidates loses about how "elections are rigged", or all the lying about climate change, etc, etc...

I think when people get hurt is where the lying has to stop. These lies have hurt, or will hurt, lots of people. Words are powerful and have consequences, and can be used as weapons to hurt people, lots of them, and even destabilize nations. That should not be legal.

Look at what has come from justthree short words; "stop the steal". And, here we are.

 

[Crovax]

Right. Mmm hmm.

You have the best words.

 

[Slavister]

So how do those democrats feel about the totally false information pertaining to Trump Russia Collusion ...

Trump asked for Russian help to help him get elected.

Russia helped Trump in all ways it could to get him elected.

Trump people even supplied Russians with proprietary election information they have collected.

All of that and more has been established by Mueller. BTW, here is a good summary if you don't want to read the whole thing.

Of course they "colluded".

 

[TXNormalGOP]

You have the best words.

Why don't you just answer the question? Why is it only the MAGAs who feel their right to free speech is under fire?

 

[Crovax]

Speech was never free. Don't believe me? Try saying out loud what you think of me, and see where that lands you. Try telling people on a plane you are armed. Try urging people to kill LGBTQ members. Try accusing someone you know is innocent of a crime. I could go on and on. This canard about free speech is a disguise for wanting to say any disgusting and vile thing you want and with no consequences. Speech is NOT free, I hope you get that.

A more meticulous person might have seen that I put free speech in scare quotes indicating that I know it's not an unlimited right and I was talking about the current protections under the 1st amendment.

 

[ataraxia]

You do know that yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected by the 1st amendment. I'm not sure hiw you think you can draw a line and not have the govt abuse it against its political rivals. The damage of idiots spewing ignorant nonsense is much less than a government that becomes an arbiter of truth

Like all rights, there are limits to the right to free speech.

Freedom of speech does not include the right:​

• To incite imminent lawless action.
  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• To make or distribute obscene materials.
  Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
  Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
  Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

www.uscourts.gov

 

[Jacksprat]

No one showed even one case of government censorship.

 

[Crovax]

Why don't you just answer the question? Why is it only the MAGAs who feel their right to free speech is under fire?

Because there is a large segment of the left that wants to alter the 1st amendment to specifically stop what the MAGA idiots are saying.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

Because there is a large segment of the left that wants to alter the 1st amendment to specifically stop what the MAGA idiots are saying.

Yes, the MAGAs believe Nazi propaganda is a good thing. The rest of the country doesn't.

Democrats are trying to protect the country, MAGAs are trying to tear it down. I appreciate any effort to halt harmful propaganda or speech that incites violence.

 

[Crovax]

Like all rights, there are limits to the right to free speech.

Freedom of speech does not include the right:​

• To incite imminent lawless action.
  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• To make or distribute obscene materials.
  Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
  Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
  Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

www.uscourts.gov

Yelling fire in a crowded theater and hate speech are both protected by the 1st amendment.

 

[Lisa]

Just curious why you think this would be necessary. The Fairness doctrine came about when NBC ABC and CBS all controlled the message. that hasn't been the case in forever. What side is not getting their message heard?

It's not about one side. It's about presenting all sides factually.

On what planet would this group exist? Not this one.

You've just protected your own inability to be non-partisan, or maybe you don't understand what subjective and objective mean.

 

[Jacksprat]

Because there is a large segment of the left that wants to alter the 1st amendment to specifically stop what the MAGA idiots are saying.

News to me. Don't you right wingers ever tire of straw man arguments?

 

[ataraxia]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater and hate speech are both protected by the 1st amendment.

Do you agree that it's not an unlimited right?

Yelling fire in a crowded theater and hate speech are both protected by the 1st amendment.

Not if you can show people got hurt as a consequence.

"The act of shouting fire is not a crime in itself. However, if a bystander calls for emergency services, or if someone is hurt, or if a court can argue that there was the intent to start a panic, then the act of falsely shouting fire is indeed a crime."

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Integrityrespec]

But it's not going to be anything close to "great minds" restricting speech, it's going to be politicians.

Do you agree that the government should be the final arbiter of what is true and what is false, and restrict the speech of those who say things the government has determined to be false?

Trust the government. Hmmmm. Biden laptop is Russian disinformation. Trump colluded with Russia. Boys are girls. Wow, I'm not thinking I can trust these guys.

 

[ataraxia]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater and hate speech are both protected by the 1st amendment.

It's interesting that defending Trump and right wing lies is being done in the same way as a lawyer would defend hate speech and lies to incite public panic.

 

[ataraxia]

Trust the government. Hmmmm. Biden laptop is Russian disinformation. Trump colluded with Russia. Boys are girls. Wow, I'm not thinking I can trust these guys.

Yes- we need to trust that you're not gonna believe what Trump's top people are finding on Obama's secret birth certificate. I'm sure we are going to find out what that was soon enough, because Trump is a trustable source, unlike all the medical organizations on the planet during a deadly pandemic.

 

[Crovax]

News to me

That's what happens when you get your news from Facebook

. Don't you right wingers ever tire of straw man arguments?

Don't you ever get tired of making a stupid post and instantly getting proved wrong?

Half of Democrats support a ban on hate speech | YouGov

Most Americans support expanded federal hate crime laws, and most Democrats support banning hate speech

today.yougov.com

 

[Jacksprat]

That's what happens when you get your news from Facebook



Don't you ever get tired of making a stupid post and instantly getting proved wrong?

Half of Democrats support a ban on hate speech | YouGov

Most Americans support expanded federal hate crime laws, and most Democrats support banning hate speech

today.yougov.com

bye

 

[Crovax]

It's interesting that defending Trump and right wing lies is being done in the same way as a lawyer would defend hate speech and lies to incite public panic.

Yes stating the law sounds the same no matter the venue, crazy how that works.

 

[Crovax]

bye

 

[Lursa]

Radio and teevee are censored by the FCC.

Information? Or standards of images and phrasing? Which can be communicated in other ways, so not affecting actual information.

 

[Crovax]

Do you agree that it's not an unlimited right?

It doesn't matter of I agree or not. it's a fact that's it not unlimited right as none are but it's as close as it can be to unlimited without societal breakdown IMO.

Not if you can show people got hurt as a consequence.

"The act of shouting fire is not a crime in itself. However, if a bystander calls for emergency services, or if someone is hurt, or if a court can argue that there was the intent to start a panic, then the act of falsely shouting fire is indeed a crime."

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not sure how those state laws would hold up under a constitutional challenge.

 

[Michael Cole]

Thank you being the first to actually answer the question.

Do you support having the government restrict speech which it considers to be false?

No. I support the current practice of national security concern, but I also strongly oppose political propaganda with the force and power of the US government, such as the upcoming House investigations into everything Biden and Fauci and everybody else. Bring Hillary back for an encore.

I have no problem with the government issuing warnings about possible propaganda right before an election. The government suspended the Hunter Biden investigation right before the election, as Garland did this year. It would be nice if Twitter would self-suspend from political propaganda for 60 days before an election.

Section 230 protects social media platforms from libel lawsuits, which is as it should be.

That's not the point. I suggested libel law for definitions of truth and lie. If you want to know who determines this, how it is determined in a court of law should be the first place to look. I feel like I'm repeating myself.

 

[KLATTU]

It's not about one side. It's about presenting all sides factually.

I'm not following . Give me an example?

 

[TXNormalGOP]

Like all rights, there are limits to the right to free speech.

Freedom of speech does not include the right:​

• To incite imminent lawless action.
  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• To make or distribute obscene materials.
  Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
  Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
  Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

www.uscourts.gov

Nice!