• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Republican Sen. Mike Lee said fact-checking is a form of censorship

Rogue Valley said:
Republican Sen. Mike Lee said fact-checking is a form of censorship

thumb.cms




Senator Lee (R-UT) exemplifies the low IQ types that the GOP advances for public office.

The Republicans are irritated because Twitter/Facebook/Google are fact-checking [habitual liar] Donald Trump, and killing Giuliani conspiracy smears against Joe Biden.
Click to expand...
Missing the point of how such groups "doing" fact-checking, when they themselves are as far removed from the facts as anything else. Then you start to realize that the Senator has a point.
When someone post their own opinion and then someone at Twitter blocks it, or removes it for the simple reasons of a fact check. Even going so far as to link to something that is supposed to explain as such. You realize that the source that they're citing is just another opinion.

Hell, Facebook will even censor your personal messages and now they're somehow the arbiters of who should be allowed to see, or say what only whatever they allow.

Does that not spark some issue with you in the least bit?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Republican Sen. Mike Lee said fact-checking is a form of censorship

thumb.cms




Senator Lee (R-UT) exemplifies the low IQ types that the GOP advances for public office.

The Republicans are irritated because Twitter/Facebook/Google are fact-checking [habitual liar] Donald Trump, and killing Giuliani conspiracy smears against Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

Mike Lee is an idiot, he wants to censure the fact checkers for exposing his lies. So who is the one who wants to censure? Well that is Mike the Moron Lee.
 
Bullseye said:
Your the ones that believed him - go for it.
Click to expand...

You can believe me when I say I don't believe either you or Trump because neither is believable while the lips or fingers are moving. We also found out where Trump's fingers have been not to mention his lips. It's up to you whether you might speak for yourself of course. Then there's Trump's Stan Laurel smile and his Walter Reed Lysol guzzling grin.

If Trump sold snake oil you guys would buy it. I'm surprised he hasn't done it already given how much he always needs fast cash.

The admiral retired and bin Laden killer McRaven says Trump's (mentally disturbed) statement the media are the "enemy of the people" is the greatest threat to democracy in his lifetime. Trump has pretty much dropped the exact language since but without retracting it or renouncing it. Indeed Trump is unrepentant by nature. It's the nature of the beast to be unrepentant, so to speak. It's the animal within.
 
Sen. Lee should be made ambassador to Beijing where he can enjoy his beloved censorship in its massive presence 24/7/365. Party-Government censors will dazzle him. CCP counter fact checkers will blow Lee away. Cause what goes into China as gold settles in as shit. Same as Lee's statement.
 
TurtleDude said:
You can award yourself all the gold medals you want, but I doubt anyone with half a degree of objectivity, believes you.
Click to expand...

You can believe me when I say no one with a clear mind believes either you or Trump when it comes to bleach, COVID and locking up fact checkers.

Trump especially given he already had chemical imbalances before he got the sudden thirst for bleach itself.

If Trump started a business in CV bleach suppositories he'd literally be a shit salesman.
 
TurtleDude said:
Twitter blocking stories about Hunter Biden and his corrupt father, is an in-kind campaign contribution to the Biden campaign.
Click to expand...

Won’t this novel legal theory of yours pose significant problems for Fox News and hundreds of other conservative websites?
 
Last edited:
Moon said:
It’s not always that straightforward, it depends on how it’s presented. I guess my question is, who is fact checking the fact checkers?
Click to expand...

I nominate Rudy "No Truth" Giuliani.

Who can report directly to Moscow Mike.

So myself I miss Jack Webb.
 
JasperL said:
The protection is broad, "or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." So who should determine whether a comment is "otherwise objectionable"? It's a subjective standard. What's objectionable to me might not be to you, and vice versa. If you're on a religious forum, what's objectionable to the host and owner? Someone disparaging religion in general or that person's religion? It might not be objectionable to an atheist or to me, but perhaps a comment suggesting Christianity is a made up myth is surely objectionable to a believer. So would you have government decide that, or prevent the host from banning atheists who fill every thread with anti-religion comments?

And in this case, what's "political"? Who decides if it's "political" or not and therefore protected? And maybe the site moderators believe a comment isn't just political but false? The notion that tax cuts pay for themselves is, IMO, a lie, false, but maybe you disagree. So if I delete a post that makes that claim, despite all the evidence that tax rate cuts lower revenue, should you have a cause of action against me for deleting 'political' comments I don't like?

I just don't get why "conservatives" and even "libertarians" are fully on board with Big Government regulation of speech. Why? Just because FB and Twitter are supposedly mean to conservatives? What about free speech and markets?
Click to expand...
Yes. It's a subjective standard. "objectionable" is a subjective standard. That's the problem. Given the list of possible reasons for moderation in the Law, offending a site's political sensibilities wasn't mentioned. You think that was an oversight? You think it was assumed?

In this case Big Government isn't the one regulating speech.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Republican Sen. Mike Lee said fact-checking is a form of censorship

thumb.cms




Senator Lee (R-UT) exemplifies the low IQ types that the GOP advances for public office.

The Republicans are irritated because Twitter/Facebook/Google are fact-checking [habitual liar] Donald Trump, and killing Giuliani conspiracy smears against Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

Another Example of Republican People following the Hitler Script.....
they want to:
"Repeat a Lie Often, in hope the people will believe it"...
(This is the mentality of Republicanism)​
 
If we cannot agree on facts then we cannot claim to be a rational nation. Either something is true or it is not true. Surely public officials should be judged and reviewed by their statements and called out for lying or claiming falsehoods. Is that not the very reason we have a free press in the first place?
 
Fishking said:
No...he was referencing Bush...."What kinda country we're gonna be. Four more years of George"...yeah..."four more years" meaning office of President and clearly not referencing someone else. And then he doesn't "quickly refer" to Trump....he fumbles around, repeats "George" again...and finally comes up with Trump's name. You can see the look of panic starting to spread on his wife's face as she knows exactly what is happening.
Click to expand...
Great, you have a different opinion, but the fact checkers provided the video, a transcript of what he said, so you can make up your own mind. Seems like a reasonable conclusion that someone correcting themselves AS they are misspeaking isn't all that confused about who is President. We've had a new puppy for 8 weeks now. I still call frequently call him the name of a dog that died 4 months ago. Do I know this dog's name? I do!

And if someone believes the fact check is defamatory, or otherwise damaging, then the person damaged can sue FB and/or the fact checker.

Completely irrational and unnecessary. They just need to have their extra rights as a platform removed. They then can be opened up for libel suits from anyone that posts anything on their site. Then they can enact whatever kind of restrictions they want, but they will not get the same protections that are afforded to real platform companies, like phone companies. Imaging if Verison listened in on your phone calls and then cut off your connection if you said something they didn't like. That's what's happening here.
Click to expand...
That happens where you're posting now on DP, in your kitchen, at your place of business, the local church. The general idea is your playground, your rules. It's a little surprising a "libertarian" wants to crap all over property rights, free speech and free association as an act of retribution for speech you don't approve of. Why not.....just not use Facebook if you don't like their rules, or how they enforce them. That's the choice the benevolent dictator on DP gives you.

Social media companies from all over the world are based here because 230 protects and encourages speech, and allows for all kinds of platforms to exist without fear of lawsuits based on the actions of their users. What you want to happen is if I dox you, and/or make a defamatory claim on DP or Facebook, you don't sue me - the person making the statement - but the entity and owners of the place that hosted my comments, for free. It makes hosting third party comments an invitation to get sued, and will kill an entire industry, all because you believe FB is mean to conservatives. More to the point, the rules encourage speech. If you make a platform liable for third party comments on their site, they will not allow comments, or will so heavily moderate comments that any opinion remotely controversial is instantly deleted, the person banned. So if you want to kill free speech online, repeal Sec. 230.

Is that your libertarian position? Kill free speech online because you believe FB might be too mean to conservatives?
 
TurtleDude said:
Twitter blocking stories about Hunter Biden and his corrupt father, is an in-kind campaign contribution to the Biden campaign.
Click to expand...
Again, you want the government to regulate political speech and prosecute those whose political speech crosses an arbitrary line only government bureaucrats and prosecutors can see. It's incredible you label yourself a "libertarian" when you're inviting a massive government intervention into political speech, and punishing "biased" speech.

Do you really have a law degree, because I can't imagine an actual lawyer not seeing the obvious danger to the 1A and free speech from what you propose.

I don't even see the problem with private entities being as biased in their speech as they want to be. Sean Hannity makes no pretense of being impartial. What's his "in-kind campaign contribution" to Trump each night? What's the NRA's in kind contribution to the GOP for their one-sided, pro-GOP speech? Gotta be massive, because they have an obviously biased opinion in favor of Republicans. More to the point, who makes that call? For you, the libertarian, it should be Big Government. Now it's Trump and his minions. What happens when AOC's federal prosecutors with unlimited resources decide what speech is allowed by various private persons or entities before they constitute an illegal campaign contribution and should be prosecuted for crimes, fined, perhaps jailed?

Trump has rotted the brains of the entire right wing. We have "libertarians" on DP literally begging for big government to punish, prosecute....speech they don't like, that's too biased in the eyes of.....Big Brother. It's incredible.
 
Oborosen said:
Missing the point of how such groups "doing" fact-checking, when they themselves are as far removed from the facts as anything else. Then you start to realize that the Senator has a point.
When someone post their own opinion and then someone at Twitter blocks it, or removes it for the simple reasons of a fact check. Even going so far as to link to something that is supposed to explain as such. You realize that the source that they're citing is just another opinion.

Hell, Facebook will even censor your personal messages and now they're somehow the arbiters of who should be allowed to see, or say what only whatever they allow.

Does that not spark some issue with you in the least bit?
Click to expand...
It's terrible. If I was you I'd log off Facebook and never open that garbage site again. That's what I've done. Works magic. I've never had a single post fact checked, censored, corrected, blocked!!

Amazing how the free market works. Seems the entire right wing is dedicated to punishing private entities for engaging in unapproved speech.
 
BlueTex said:
Won’t this novel legal theory of yours pose significant problems for Fox News and hundreds of other conservative websites?
Click to expand...
Our resident lawyer with a claimed ivy league law degree appears not to have thought through his theory. I can't imagine a policy more destructive to the 1A than what he's proposing, because it literally puts government in the business of monitoring and prosecuting, as a crime, political speech that crosses some arbitrary line. Trump has addled the brains of the entire right wing it appears.
 
bubbabgone said:
Yes. It's a subjective standard. "objectionable" is a subjective standard. That's the problem. Given the list of possible reasons for moderation in the Law, offending a site's political sensibilities wasn't mentioned. You think that was an oversight? You think it was assumed?

In this case Big Government isn't the one regulating speech.
Click to expand...
I made my point and you ignored nearly every word. No, I don't think it was an oversight - they used a broad, subjective standard deliberately. It's not a problem because it puts....the property owner!!!!!! in charge of what is objectionable. Imagine that - letting the owners of the playground establish the rules of their own, free, playground with virtually no rules on them imposed by Big Government!! There was a time when conservatives and libertarians would cheer such an outcome, but in the Trump era the right wing has adopted positions directly opposite that. You're doing it now.

Your recourse should you not like how they define objectionable is to not use that playground provided for you for free. DP has their own arbitrary standards that I happen to like but they are subjective, arbitrary, subject to the whims of the benevolent dictator and the great team of moderators assigned to police them. I correctly have no recourse should they choose to delete a comment, ding me with points, put me on probation, or ban me. That's GREAT! I'm a guest. If I don't like how they're doing the job, I can leave, or just quit posting. What part of that do you not like?
 
JasperL said:
I made my point and you ignored nearly every word. No, I don't think it was an oversight - they used a broad, subjective standard deliberately. It's not a problem because it puts....the property owner!!!!!! in charge of what is objectionable. Imagine that - letting the owners of the playground establish the rules of their own, free, playground with virtually no rules on them imposed by Big Government!! There was a time when conservatives and libertarians would cheer such an outcome, but in the Trump era the right wing has adopted positions directly opposite that. You're doing it now.

Your recourse should you not like how they define objectionable is to not use that playground provided for you for free. DP has their own arbitrary standards that I happen to like but they are subjective, arbitrary, subject to the whims of the benevolent dictator and the great team of moderators assigned to police them. I correctly have no recourse should they choose to delete a comment, ding me with points, put me on probation, or ban me. That's GREAT! I'm a guest. If I don't like how they're doing the job, I can leave, or just quit posting. What part of that do you not like?
Click to expand...
I highlighted in red what you said and responded directly to it.
Do you really think Congress anticipated that sites for whom they would grant legal protection and would become dominant on the internet would censor political speech?
They obviously didn't anticipate political censorship, as the recent Senate hearing should have told you.
Conservatives and libertarians don't cheer censorship of ideas. You are.
Only in your mind could a condemnation of censorship be called censorship.
 
bubbabgone said:
And they shouldn't be censored.
Click to expand...
Opinions should be censored. Facts not.
If I say that women's Olympic track and field records are about equal to high school boys, that's a fact. If I say women shouldn't be allowed to compete in athletics because they're too weak and frail, that's an opinion that should be censored before it gets repeated and some girl reads it and believes it.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It is in fact true. since fact checkers are all run by ideological liberals and are used as a justification for censorship by big tech.
Click to expand...
They're all run by ideological liberals? From which Qanon bloggers behind did you pull that piece of fiction?
 
bubbabgone said:
I highlighted in red what you said and responded directly to it.
Do you really think Congress anticipated that sites for whom they would grant legal protection and would become dominant on the internet would censor political speech?
They obviously didn't anticipate political censorship, as the recent Senate hearing should have told you.
Click to expand...
But then I explained why a subjective standard is a good thing, repeatedly. You've ignored all that, but it actually matters. Sec. 230 doesn't just apply to FB and Twitter, but to 10s of thousands of websites, who ALL rely on the protections of 230 to host third party comments. You want to destroy all that because you're mad at FB. It's frankly incredible to me.

And of course they anticipated that it would or could apply to political speech, religious speech and more because they explicitly said the 'otherwise objectionable' standard applies to constitutionally protected speech. Carving out exceptions just means that you'll kill free speech online, because what's "political?" Can we discuss abortion, gun rights, taxes, government spending, gay rights, gay marriage, marriage in general, religion, the military, climate change? ALL THOSE ARE "POLITICAL" TOPICS, or can be interpreted that way. Almost anything with polarizing views is "political" so about 99% of DP is in the "do not moderate" category, including people expressing open support for racist views, white nationalism, white supremacy.

Conservatives and libertarians don't cheer censorship of ideas
Click to expand...
Of course you do. Churches "censor ideas" every day. The NRA convention "censors" gun control views on stage. The GOP convention "censors" views favoring socialized medicine. Trump doesn't invite liberals on stage at his rallies. You're upset with FB for having an allegedly "liberal" corporate viewpoint. You want to enforce on them some unachievable notion of political neutrality, which is a form of censorship.
 
1. Never trust a man who combs his hair with buttered toast.

mike-lee.jpg
 
Grand Mal said:
Opinions should be censored. Facts not.
If I say that women's Olympic track and field records are about equal to high school boys, that's a fact. If I say women shouldn't be allowed to compete in athletics because they're too weak and frail, that's an opinion that should be censored before it gets repeated and some girl reads it and believes it.
Click to expand...
Opinions shouldn't be censored. And opinions can be presented as facts but aren't. Neither should be censored. Including yours.
 
bubbabgone said:
Opinions shouldn't be censored. And opinions can be presented as facts but aren't. Neither should be censored. Including yours.
Click to expand...
Well, if that's the case then there should be no censorship atall atall. Facts can't be censored, that's for sure.
But what if my opinion could cause egregious harm to innocent people? If put into action, I mean, and I also advocated for that action. Should I be entitled to a stage and an audience to promote that opinion?
 
Grand Mal said:
Well, if that's the case then there should be no censorship atall atall. Facts can't be censored, that's for sure.
But what if my opinion could cause egregious harm to innocent people? If put into action, I mean, and I also advocated for that action. Should I be entitled to a stage and an audience to promote that opinion?
Click to expand...
Opinions can be misrepresented as facts.
People use the SPLC as a reliable source for facts.
People use Glenn Kessler as a reliable source for fact-checking.
People repeat that 97% of "climate scientists" believe humans are responsible for climate change because that's what they were told so it must be a fact.

Your example is covered in Section 230.
Censoring political ideas on public forums like Twitter was not anticipated as acceptable in the Law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom