Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Ministry of Truth
34,954 Views |
650 Replies |
Last: 2 mo ago by Cobretti
Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
Which federal agencies are the ones that can't be abused?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
Sam Lowry said:Which federal agencies are the ones that can't be abused?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
What are you talking about? There are numerous agencies that are unnecessary and have been abused. the fact that others exist doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about the creation of a new one that can squelch speech.
Your attempt to downplay the danger is very telling.
So we're back where we were a year ago. It's a new board. Staffed by Democrats. With potential for abuse. Just like every other agency created by Biden or any other Democrat. And as you admitted, "we don't know what the board's powers will be," so you really don't know whether it could have squelched speech. Do you have anything at all new to add, or do you just really enjoy trolling long-dead threads about moot topics?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Which federal agencies are the ones that can't be abused?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
What are you talking about? There are numerous agencies that are unnecessary and have been abused. the fact that others exist doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about the creation of a new one that can squelch speech.
Your attempt to downplay the danger is very telling.
Sam Lowry said:So we're back where we were a year ago. It's a new board. Staffed by Democrats. With potential for abuse. Just like every other agency created by Biden or any other Democrat. And as you admitted, "we don't know what the board's powers will be," so you really don't know whether it could have squelched speech. Do you have anything at all new to add, or do you just really enjoy trolling long-dead threads about moot topics?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Which federal agencies are the ones that can't be abused?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
What are you talking about? There are numerous agencies that are unnecessary and have been abused. the fact that others exist doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about the creation of a new one that can squelch speech.
Your attempt to downplay the danger is very telling.
So, I don't have time today to educate you again on conservative principles. All I will say is that conservatives generally believe in limited government and free speech, and generally oppose the creation of unnecessary agencies to protect us from speech, even speech we disagree with. The dangers of such an agency would be readily apparent to conservatives.
And yes, you still have your head up your ass just like a year ago.
Your generalized fears are duly noted.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So we're back where we were a year ago. It's a new board. Staffed by Democrats. With potential for abuse. Just like every other agency created by Biden or any other Democrat. And as you admitted, "we don't know what the board's powers will be," so you really don't know whether it could have squelched speech. Do you have anything at all new to add, or do you just really enjoy trolling long-dead threads about moot topics?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Which federal agencies are the ones that can't be abused?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
What are you talking about? There are numerous agencies that are unnecessary and have been abused. the fact that others exist doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about the creation of a new one that can squelch speech.
Your attempt to downplay the danger is very telling.
So, I don't have time today to educate you again on conservative principles. All I will say is that conservatives generally believe in limited government and free speech, and generally oppose the creation of unnecessary agencies to protect us from speech, even speech we disagree with. The dangers of such an agency would be readily apparent to conservatives.
Sam Lowry said:Your generalized fears are duly noted.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So we're back where we were a year ago. It's a new board. Staffed by Democrats. With potential for abuse. Just like every other agency created by Biden or any other Democrat. And as you admitted, "we don't know what the board's powers will be," so you really don't know whether it could have squelched speech. Do you have anything at all new to add, or do you just really enjoy trolling long-dead threads about moot topics?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Which federal agencies are the ones that can't be abused?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
What are you talking about? There are numerous agencies that are unnecessary and have been abused. the fact that others exist doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about the creation of a new one that can squelch speech.
Your attempt to downplay the danger is very telling.
So, I don't have time today to educate you again on conservative principles. All I will say is that conservatives generally believe in limited government and free speech, and generally oppose the creation of unnecessary agencies to protect us from speech, even speech we disagree with. The dangers of such an agency would be readily apparent to conservatives.
As is your obtuseness and lack of conservative principles.
You must've forgotten that you agreed with my concerns.
I assumed you'd forgotten it when you claimed the DGB had my full support. That's why we've been having this conversation.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your generalized fears are duly noted.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So we're back where we were a year ago. It's a new board. Staffed by Democrats. With potential for abuse. Just like every other agency created by Biden or any other Democrat. And as you admitted, "we don't know what the board's powers will be," so you really don't know whether it could have squelched speech. Do you have anything at all new to add, or do you just really enjoy trolling long-dead threads about moot topics?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Which federal agencies are the ones that can't be abused?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
What are you talking about? There are numerous agencies that are unnecessary and have been abused. the fact that others exist doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about the creation of a new one that can squelch speech.
Your attempt to downplay the danger is very telling.
So, I don't have time today to educate you again on conservative principles. All I will say is that conservatives generally believe in limited government and free speech, and generally oppose the creation of unnecessary agencies to protect us from speech, even speech we disagree with. The dangers of such an agency would be readily apparent to conservatives.
As is your obtuseness and lack of conservative principles.
You must've forgotten that you agreed with my concerns.
Sam Lowry said:I assumed you'd forgotten it when you claimed the DGB had my full support. That's why we've been having this conversation.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your generalized fears are duly noted.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So we're back where we were a year ago. It's a new board. Staffed by Democrats. With potential for abuse. Just like every other agency created by Biden or any other Democrat. And as you admitted, "we don't know what the board's powers will be," so you really don't know whether it could have squelched speech. Do you have anything at all new to add, or do you just really enjoy trolling long-dead threads about moot topics?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Which federal agencies are the ones that can't be abused?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
What are you talking about? There are numerous agencies that are unnecessary and have been abused. the fact that others exist doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about the creation of a new one that can squelch speech.
Your attempt to downplay the danger is very telling.
So, I don't have time today to educate you again on conservative principles. All I will say is that conservatives generally believe in limited government and free speech, and generally oppose the creation of unnecessary agencies to protect us from speech, even speech we disagree with. The dangers of such an agency would be readily apparent to conservatives.
As is your obtuseness and lack of conservative principles.
You must've forgotten that you agreed with my concerns.
So is there something to be concerned about or not? Make up your mind.
Concerning, yes. Un-American, no…at least not based on anything I've seen here.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:I assumed you'd forgotten it when you claimed the DGB had my full support. That's why we've been having this conversation.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your generalized fears are duly noted.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So we're back where we were a year ago. It's a new board. Staffed by Democrats. With potential for abuse. Just like every other agency created by Biden or any other Democrat. And as you admitted, "we don't know what the board's powers will be," so you really don't know whether it could have squelched speech. Do you have anything at all new to add, or do you just really enjoy trolling long-dead threads about moot topics?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Which federal agencies are the ones that can't be abused?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
What are you talking about? There are numerous agencies that are unnecessary and have been abused. the fact that others exist doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about the creation of a new one that can squelch speech.
Your attempt to downplay the danger is very telling.
So, I don't have time today to educate you again on conservative principles. All I will say is that conservatives generally believe in limited government and free speech, and generally oppose the creation of unnecessary agencies to protect us from speech, even speech we disagree with. The dangers of such an agency would be readily apparent to conservatives.
As is your obtuseness and lack of conservative principles.
You must've forgotten that you agreed with my concerns.
So is there something to be concerned about or not? Make up your mind.
Sam Lowry said:Concerning, yes. Un-American, no…at least not based on anything I've seen here.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:I assumed you'd forgotten it when you claimed the DGB had my full support. That's why we've been having this conversation.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your generalized fears are duly noted.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So we're back where we were a year ago. It's a new board. Staffed by Democrats. With potential for abuse. Just like every other agency created by Biden or any other Democrat. And as you admitted, "we don't know what the board's powers will be," so you really don't know whether it could have squelched speech. Do you have anything at all new to add, or do you just really enjoy trolling long-dead threads about moot topics?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Which federal agencies are the ones that can't be abused?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
What are you talking about? There are numerous agencies that are unnecessary and have been abused. the fact that others exist doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about the creation of a new one that can squelch speech.
Your attempt to downplay the danger is very telling.
So, I don't have time today to educate you again on conservative principles. All I will say is that conservatives generally believe in limited government and free speech, and generally oppose the creation of unnecessary agencies to protect us from speech, even speech we disagree with. The dangers of such an agency would be readily apparent to conservatives.
As is your obtuseness and lack of conservative principles.
You must've forgotten that you agreed with my concerns.
So is there something to be concerned about or not? Make up your mind.
So what's concerning about the ministry of truth in your mind?
And for you, an agency that protects Americans from what it deems to be harmful free speech is consistent with American values? Man I am really curious how so. Pray tell?
It's concerning because it potentially would have regulated speech and because the left has an increasing tendency toward censorship. However, we do regulate speech in a number of ways, for example with regard to defamation, fraud, campaign speech, broadcast media, etc. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that as long as the rules are neutral as to speaker, viewpoint, and content.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Concerning, yes. Un-American, no%85at least not based on anything I've seen here.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:I assumed you'd forgotten it when you claimed the DGB had my full support. That's why we've been having this conversation.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your generalized fears are duly noted.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So we're back where we were a year ago. It's a new board. Staffed by Democrats. With potential for abuse. Just like every other agency created by Biden or any other Democrat. And as you admitted, "we don't know what the board's powers will be," so you really don't know whether it could have squelched speech. Do you have anything at all new to add, or do you just really enjoy trolling long-dead threads about moot topics?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Which federal agencies are the ones that can't be abused?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Well, you said it was un-American and an overreach. Help me understand how it could be constitutional and un-American at the same time.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:So it is constitutional after all?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your concerns are vague but understandable. I happen to agree with them. But they don't prove your point. What you need to cite, if you want to say the board has unconstitutional powers, is 1) a specific power and 2) a specific constitutional provision.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
There's a reason the public square is called the marketplace of ideas. We haven't needed an Orwellian and partisan ministry of truth to tell us what is fact or fiction for the last 200 plus years. No need for one now.
At some point a conservative will be elected to office that doesn't agree with your draconian takes on COVID. If Biden had gotten his way and the ministry had been instituted, I suspect your ideas about same might be a little different.
I've never argued that it's unconstitutional. I've argued that it's a horrid idea that could easily be abused in response to your flippancy concerning the issue.
The question of whether the govt has abused its power and engaged in unconstitutional conduct with respect to its collusion with the social media companies is another matter altogether. It very well might be.
What part of I never said it was unconstitutional don't you understand? I haven't examined its constitutionality. The point is I never said it was. Try to read and comprehend.
Already did. If you're too dumb to understand why something that hasn't been needed for 200 years in our nations history with the capacity to be abused is unAmerican then I can't help you.
What are you talking about? There are numerous agencies that are unnecessary and have been abused. the fact that others exist doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about the creation of a new one that can squelch speech.
Your attempt to downplay the danger is very telling.
So, I don't have time today to educate you again on conservative principles. All I will say is that conservatives generally believe in limited government and free speech, and generally oppose the creation of unnecessary agencies to protect us from speech, even speech we disagree with. The dangers of such an agency would be readily apparent to conservatives.
As is your obtuseness and lack of conservative principles.
You must've forgotten that you agreed with my concerns.
So is there something to be concerned about or not? Make up your mind.
So what's concerning about the ministry of truth in your mind?
And for you, an agency that protects Americans from what it deems to be harmful free speech is consistent with American values? Man I am really curious how so. Pray tell?
If you had stated that first sentence early on in this thread, any debate, as between us at least (and most likely several other posters), would have probably ended at that point, as that is what I have been saying from the get go. I am not sure why it took you so long to acknowledge that, nor why you have repeatedly downplayed and argued against the dangers of such an agency. You've lacked consistency on this thread.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
I told you on the first page (and many times since) that I understood the potential problems but thought we should know some specifics before freaking out. You have yet to provide any, nor have you articulated any "stark difference" between this and other free speech issues.Mothra said:
If you had stated that first sentence early on in this thread, any debate, as between us at least (and most likely several other posters), would have probably ended at that point, as that is what I have been saying from the get go. I am not sure why it took you so long to acknowledge that, nor why you have repeatedly downplayed and argued against the dangers of such an agency. You've lacked consistency on this thread.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
Sam Lowry said:How should the government respond to disinformation campaigns by foreign powers, human traffickers, or other bad actors when there are implications for national security?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
Certainly there is such a thing as disinformation. The question is whether something is disinformation simply because a government agency labels it as such.
Well, we could always have an officially sanctioned government news agency to advise people what is the truth, kind of like this one:
http://kcna.kp/en
The purpose was not to advise people on what is the truth. It was to advise people on disinformation, which is a particular kind of falsehood employed in a particular way.JXL said:Sam Lowry said:How should the government respond to disinformation campaigns by foreign powers, human traffickers, or other bad actors when there are implications for national security?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Do you think there is such a thing as disinformation? If so, what should they call it?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:Making a statement about information doesn't give them actual control over it. And as you've noticed, they can lie already.Doc Holliday said:A 20 year war based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction happened because our government lied.Sam Lowry said:Truth and information are also different things.Doc Holliday said:They were going to make statements about information as if they were the arbiter of truth.Sam Lowry said:Submitting guidance on the handling of disinformation and labeling a report as disinformation despite its being true are not the same thing at all.Doc Holliday said:Submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content and publicly state what is and isn't disinformation.Sam Lowry said:Where is the purview defined in a manner that would allow them to do this?Doc Holliday said:The purview of the Disinformation Governance Board would have allowed them to label information such as "there are US troops on the ground in Ukraine" as misinformation despite it being the truth.Sam Lowry said:Nah.cowboycwr said:There were plenty of arguments made. You just ignored them all because you didn't like them or them.Sam Lowry said:That's why I was interested in this thread. I was hoping an actual conservative would be able to make an actual argument.Mothra said:You might consider that the Biden admin decided to reverse its decision on the ministry of truth at least in part based on the blowback his admin rightly received after suggesting a truth ministry.Sam Lowry said:Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.Mothra said:
Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"
So perhaps the protests by actual conservatives had some merit.
So in this case, the DHS twitter/facebook accounts and their website would state "there are no US troops on the ground despite popular reports". They would call it Russian disinformation most likely, despite it being the truth. This then would be parroted by mainstream media and used against anyone claiming otherwise.
They would be the arbiter of "truth".
You should be against that.
Let's work together to make sure the government doesn't ****ing lie to us by not letting them govern ANY public information.
It's a lot easier to lie when you can label any contrary statements as "disinformation" (whether or not true).
Certainly there is such a thing as disinformation. The question is whether something is disinformation simply because a government agency labels it as such.
Well, we could always have an officially sanctioned government news agency to advise people what is the truth, kind of like this one:
http://kcna.kp/en
So, the creation of a leftist agency that "would have regulated speech" given "the left['s]...increasing tendency toward censorship" is simply a minor concern for you? The left regulating the First Amendment is nothing to get too worked up about, and certainly not something someone would label as "dangerous" or "un-American"?Sam Lowry said:I told you on the first page (and many times since) that I understood the potential problems but thought we should know some specifics before freaking out. You have yet to provide any, nor have you articulated any "stark difference" between this and other free speech issues.Mothra said:
If you had stated that first sentence early on in this thread, any debate, as between us at least (and most likely several other posters), would have probably ended at that point, as that is what I have been saying from the get go. I am not sure why it took you so long to acknowledge that, nor why you have repeatedly downplayed and argued against the dangers of such an agency. You've lacked consistency on this thread.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
You are a trip, Sam.
I assumed you were a lawyer and had the legal training and education to understand the difference between fraud, defamation and FCC regulations on what can be broadcast. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into how the laws we have on the books do not set a precedent for a leftist agency to regulate our First Amendment rights. As I suggested above, those things should be self-evident to any reasonable
It's not clear that it would have been a "leftist agency" any more than the FCC, whose current chairwoman is a Democrat first appointed by Barack Obama. Her activities obviously have a great deal of relevance to free speech, but I don't see anyone panicking over it.Mothra said:So, the creation of a leftist agency that "would have regulated speech" given "the left['s]...increasing tendency toward censorship" is simply a minor concern for you? The left regulating the First Amendment is nothing to get too worked up about, and certainly not something someone would label as "dangerous" or "un-American"?Sam Lowry said:I told you on the first page (and many times since) that I understood the potential problems but thought we should know some specifics before freaking out. You have yet to provide any, nor have you articulated any "stark difference" between this and other free speech issues.Mothra said:
If you had stated that first sentence early on in this thread, any debate, as between us at least (and most likely several other posters), would have probably ended at that point, as that is what I have been saying from the get go. I am not sure why it took you so long to acknowledge that, nor why you have repeatedly downplayed and argued against the dangers of such an agency. You've lacked consistency on this thread.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
You are a trip, Sam.
I assumed you were a lawyer and had the legal training and education to understand the difference between fraud, defamation and FCC regulations on what can be broadcast. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into how the laws we have on the books do not set a precedent for a leftist agency to regulate our First Amendment rights. As I suggested above, those things should be self-evident to any reasonable conservative.
So we shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights because the FCC already has the limited ability to prevent obscene material from being broadcast over the airwaves? That's your position?Sam Lowry said:It's not clear that it would have been a "leftist agency" any more than the FCC, whose current chairwoman is a Democrat first appointed by Barack Obama. Her activities obviously have a great deal of relevance to free speech, but I don't see anyone panicking over it.Mothra said:So, the creation of a leftist agency that "would have regulated speech" given "the left['s]...increasing tendency toward censorship" is simply a minor concern for you? The left regulating the First Amendment is nothing to get too worked up about, and certainly not something someone would label as "dangerous" or "un-American"?Sam Lowry said:I told you on the first page (and many times since) that I understood the potential problems but thought we should know some specifics before freaking out. You have yet to provide any, nor have you articulated any "stark difference" between this and other free speech issues.Mothra said:
If you had stated that first sentence early on in this thread, any debate, as between us at least (and most likely several other posters), would have probably ended at that point, as that is what I have been saying from the get go. I am not sure why it took you so long to acknowledge that, nor why you have repeatedly downplayed and argued against the dangers of such an agency. You've lacked consistency on this thread.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
You are a trip, Sam.
I assumed you were a lawyer and had the legal training and education to understand the difference between fraud, defamation and FCC regulations on what can be broadcast. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into how the laws we have on the books do not set a precedent for a leftist agency to regulate our First Amendment rights. As I suggested above, those things should be self-evident to any reasonable conservative.
The FCC does a lot more than that. For example it's involved with broadband access and net neutrality, which are big issues these days. It governs the whole infrastructure that makes our online exchange of ideas possible.Mothra said:So we shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights because the FCC already has the limited ability to prevent obscene material from being broadcast over the airwaves? That's your position?Sam Lowry said:It's not clear that it would have been a "leftist agency" any more than the FCC, whose current chairwoman is a Democrat first appointed by Barack Obama. Her activities obviously have a great deal of relevance to free speech, but I don't see anyone panicking over it.Mothra said:So, the creation of a leftist agency that "would have regulated speech" given "the left['s]...increasing tendency toward censorship" is simply a minor concern for you? The left regulating the First Amendment is nothing to get too worked up about, and certainly not something someone would label as "dangerous" or "un-American"?Sam Lowry said:I told you on the first page (and many times since) that I understood the potential problems but thought we should know some specifics before freaking out. You have yet to provide any, nor have you articulated any "stark difference" between this and other free speech issues.Mothra said:
If you had stated that first sentence early on in this thread, any debate, as between us at least (and most likely several other posters), would have probably ended at that point, as that is what I have been saying from the get go. I am not sure why it took you so long to acknowledge that, nor why you have repeatedly downplayed and argued against the dangers of such an agency. You've lacked consistency on this thread.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
You are a trip, Sam.
I assumed you were a lawyer and had the legal training and education to understand the difference between fraud, defamation and FCC regulations on what can be broadcast. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into how the laws we have on the books do not set a precedent for a leftist agency to regulate our First Amendment rights. As I suggested above, those things should be self-evident to any reasonable conservative.
You're overstating the FCC's ability to regulate speech, which is extremely limited. Over-the-air broadcasts by local TV and radio stations are subject to certain limited speech restraints, such as what Congress has defined as indecency, obscenity, sponsorship ID, conduct of on-air contests, hoaxes, commercial content in children's TV, and accessibility to emergency information. Speech transmitted by cable or satellite TV systems are generally not regulated by the FCC, and the FCC does not regulate online content at all. In short, the FCC's powers are generally limited to broadcast TV and radio, and even then those powers are extremely limited.Sam Lowry said:The FCC does a lot more than that. For example it's involved with broadband access and net neutrality, which are big issues these days. It governs the whole infrastructure that makes our online exchange of ideas possible.Mothra said:So we shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights because the FCC already has the limited ability to prevent obscene material from being broadcast over the airwaves? That's your position?Sam Lowry said:It's not clear that it would have been a "leftist agency" any more than the FCC, whose current chairwoman is a Democrat first appointed by Barack Obama. Her activities obviously have a great deal of relevance to free speech, but I don't see anyone panicking over it.Mothra said:So, the creation of a leftist agency that "would have regulated speech" given "the left['s]...increasing tendency toward censorship" is simply a minor concern for you? The left regulating the First Amendment is nothing to get too worked up about, and certainly not something someone would label as "dangerous" or "un-American"?Sam Lowry said:I told you on the first page (and many times since) that I understood the potential problems but thought we should know some specifics before freaking out. You have yet to provide any, nor have you articulated any "stark difference" between this and other free speech issues.Mothra said:
If you had stated that first sentence early on in this thread, any debate, as between us at least (and most likely several other posters), would have probably ended at that point, as that is what I have been saying from the get go. I am not sure why it took you so long to acknowledge that, nor why you have repeatedly downplayed and argued against the dangers of such an agency. You've lacked consistency on this thread.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
You are a trip, Sam.
I assumed you were a lawyer and had the legal training and education to understand the difference between fraud, defamation and FCC regulations on what can be broadcast. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into how the laws we have on the books do not set a precedent for a leftist agency to regulate our First Amendment rights. As I suggested above, those things should be self-evident to any reasonable conservative.
But let's assume the FCC has far greater power to limit content than stated above: your position is because there is already an agency that has certain powers to regulate TV and radio broadcasts, conservatives shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights?
My position is that we need to know what the new board's powers would be before we know how concerned to be. For all we know they could be more limited than the FCC's.Mothra said:You're overstating the FCC's ability to regulate speech, which is extremely limited. Over-the-air broadcasts by local TV and radio stations are subject to certain limited speech restraints, such as what Congress has defined as indecency, obscenity, sponsorship ID, conduct of on-air contests, hoaxes, commercial content in children's TV, and accessibility to emergency information. Speech transmitted by cable or satellite TV systems are generally not regulated by the FCC, and the FCC does not regulate online content at all. In short, the FCC's powers are generally limited to broadcast TV and radio, and even then those powers are extremely limited.Sam Lowry said:The FCC does a lot more than that. For example it's involved with broadband access and net neutrality, which are big issues these days. It governs the whole infrastructure that makes our online exchange of ideas possible.Mothra said:So we shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights because the FCC already has the limited ability to prevent obscene material from being broadcast over the airwaves? That's your position?Sam Lowry said:It's not clear that it would have been a "leftist agency" any more than the FCC, whose current chairwoman is a Democrat first appointed by Barack Obama. Her activities obviously have a great deal of relevance to free speech, but I don't see anyone panicking over it.Mothra said:So, the creation of a leftist agency that "would have regulated speech" given "the left['s]...increasing tendency toward censorship" is simply a minor concern for you? The left regulating the First Amendment is nothing to get too worked up about, and certainly not something someone would label as "dangerous" or "un-American"?Sam Lowry said:I told you on the first page (and many times since) that I understood the potential problems but thought we should know some specifics before freaking out. You have yet to provide any, nor have you articulated any "stark difference" between this and other free speech issues.Mothra said:
If you had stated that first sentence early on in this thread, any debate, as between us at least (and most likely several other posters), would have probably ended at that point, as that is what I have been saying from the get go. I am not sure why it took you so long to acknowledge that, nor why you have repeatedly downplayed and argued against the dangers of such an agency. You've lacked consistency on this thread.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
You are a trip, Sam.
I assumed you were a lawyer and had the legal training and education to understand the difference between fraud, defamation and FCC regulations on what can be broadcast. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into how the laws we have on the books do not set a precedent for a leftist agency to regulate our First Amendment rights. As I suggested above, those things should be self-evident to any reasonable conservative.
But let's assume the FCC has far greater power to limit content than stated above: your position is because there is already an agency that has certain powers to regulate TV and radio broadcasts, conservatives shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights?
So, the mere creation of an agency run by partisans with the potential to label speech as disinformation isn't anything a conservative should be too concerned about until we know all of its powers? Conservatives should generally be ok with and not too concerned with the creation of an unprecedented agency by the Biden admin? Those of us concerned with the thought of it are merely being alarmists because we don't get too worked up by the FCC?Sam Lowry said:My position is that we need to know what the new board's powers would be before we know how concerned to be. For all we know they could be more limited than the FCC's.Mothra said:You're overstating the FCC's ability to regulate speech, which is extremely limited. Over-the-air broadcasts by local TV and radio stations are subject to certain limited speech restraints, such as what Congress has defined as indecency, obscenity, sponsorship ID, conduct of on-air contests, hoaxes, commercial content in children's TV, and accessibility to emergency information. Speech transmitted by cable or satellite TV systems are generally not regulated by the FCC, and the FCC does not regulate online content at all. In short, the FCC's powers are generally limited to broadcast TV and radio, and even then those powers are extremely limited.Sam Lowry said:The FCC does a lot more than that. For example it's involved with broadband access and net neutrality, which are big issues these days. It governs the whole infrastructure that makes our online exchange of ideas possible.Mothra said:So we shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights because the FCC already has the limited ability to prevent obscene material from being broadcast over the airwaves? That's your position?Sam Lowry said:It's not clear that it would have been a "leftist agency" any more than the FCC, whose current chairwoman is a Democrat first appointed by Barack Obama. Her activities obviously have a great deal of relevance to free speech, but I don't see anyone panicking over it.Mothra said:So, the creation of a leftist agency that "would have regulated speech" given "the left['s]...increasing tendency toward censorship" is simply a minor concern for you? The left regulating the First Amendment is nothing to get too worked up about, and certainly not something someone would label as "dangerous" or "un-American"?Sam Lowry said:I told you on the first page (and many times since) that I understood the potential problems but thought we should know some specifics before freaking out. You have yet to provide any, nor have you articulated any "stark difference" between this and other free speech issues.Mothra said:
If you had stated that first sentence early on in this thread, any debate, as between us at least (and most likely several other posters), would have probably ended at that point, as that is what I have been saying from the get go. I am not sure why it took you so long to acknowledge that, nor why you have repeatedly downplayed and argued against the dangers of such an agency. You've lacked consistency on this thread.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
You are a trip, Sam.
I assumed you were a lawyer and had the legal training and education to understand the difference between fraud, defamation and FCC regulations on what can be broadcast. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into how the laws we have on the books do not set a precedent for a leftist agency to regulate our First Amendment rights. As I suggested above, those things should be self-evident to any reasonable conservative.
But let's assume the FCC has far greater power to limit content than stated above: your position is because there is already an agency that has certain powers to regulate TV and radio broadcasts, conservatives shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights?
We already have an agency that labels disinformation, so it's the opposite of unprecedented. The board was proposed in order to consolidate or coordinate the activities of various groups in the DHS that work with the issue.Mothra said:So, the mere creation of an agency run by partisans with the potential to label speech as disinformation isn't anything a conservative should be too concerned about until we know all of its powers? Conservatives should generally be ok with and not too concerned with the creation of an unprecedented agency by the Biden admin? Those of us concerned with the thought of it are merely being alarmists because we don't get too worked up by the FCC?Sam Lowry said:My position is that we need to know what the new board's powers would be before we know how concerned to be. For all we know they could be more limited than the FCC's.Mothra said:You're overstating the FCC's ability to regulate speech, which is extremely limited. Over-the-air broadcasts by local TV and radio stations are subject to certain limited speech restraints, such as what Congress has defined as indecency, obscenity, sponsorship ID, conduct of on-air contests, hoaxes, commercial content in children's TV, and accessibility to emergency information. Speech transmitted by cable or satellite TV systems are generally not regulated by the FCC, and the FCC does not regulate online content at all. In short, the FCC's powers are generally limited to broadcast TV and radio, and even then those powers are extremely limited.Sam Lowry said:The FCC does a lot more than that. For example it's involved with broadband access and net neutrality, which are big issues these days. It governs the whole infrastructure that makes our online exchange of ideas possible.Mothra said:So we shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights because the FCC already has the limited ability to prevent obscene material from being broadcast over the airwaves? That's your position?Sam Lowry said:It's not clear that it would have been a "leftist agency" any more than the FCC, whose current chairwoman is a Democrat first appointed by Barack Obama. Her activities obviously have a great deal of relevance to free speech, but I don't see anyone panicking over it.Mothra said:So, the creation of a leftist agency that "would have regulated speech" given "the left['s]...increasing tendency toward censorship" is simply a minor concern for you? The left regulating the First Amendment is nothing to get too worked up about, and certainly not something someone would label as "dangerous" or "un-American"?Sam Lowry said:I told you on the first page (and many times since) that I understood the potential problems but thought we should know some specifics before freaking out. You have yet to provide any, nor have you articulated any "stark difference" between this and other free speech issues.Mothra said:
If you had stated that first sentence early on in this thread, any debate, as between us at least (and most likely several other posters), would have probably ended at that point, as that is what I have been saying from the get go. I am not sure why it took you so long to acknowledge that, nor why you have repeatedly downplayed and argued against the dangers of such an agency. You've lacked consistency on this thread.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
You are a trip, Sam.
I assumed you were a lawyer and had the legal training and education to understand the difference between fraud, defamation and FCC regulations on what can be broadcast. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into how the laws we have on the books do not set a precedent for a leftist agency to regulate our First Amendment rights. As I suggested above, those things should be self-evident to any reasonable conservative.
But let's assume the FCC has far greater power to limit content than stated above: your position is because there is already an agency that has certain powers to regulate TV and radio broadcasts, conservatives shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights?
The head of DHS is a Democrat too, by the way.
Which agency are you referencing?Sam Lowry said:We already have an agency that labels disinformation, so it's the opposite of unprecedented. The board was proposed in order to consolidate or coordinate the activities of various groups in the DHS that work with the issue.Mothra said:So, the mere creation of an agency run by partisans with the potential to label speech as disinformation isn't anything a conservative should be too concerned about until we know all of its powers? Conservatives should generally be ok with and not too concerned with the creation of an unprecedented agency by the Biden admin? Those of us concerned with the thought of it are merely being alarmists because we don't get too worked up by the FCC?Sam Lowry said:My position is that we need to know what the new board's powers would be before we know how concerned to be. For all we know they could be more limited than the FCC's.Mothra said:You're overstating the FCC's ability to regulate speech, which is extremely limited. Over-the-air broadcasts by local TV and radio stations are subject to certain limited speech restraints, such as what Congress has defined as indecency, obscenity, sponsorship ID, conduct of on-air contests, hoaxes, commercial content in children's TV, and accessibility to emergency information. Speech transmitted by cable or satellite TV systems are generally not regulated by the FCC, and the FCC does not regulate online content at all. In short, the FCC's powers are generally limited to broadcast TV and radio, and even then those powers are extremely limited.Sam Lowry said:The FCC does a lot more than that. For example it's involved with broadband access and net neutrality, which are big issues these days. It governs the whole infrastructure that makes our online exchange of ideas possible.Mothra said:So we shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights because the FCC already has the limited ability to prevent obscene material from being broadcast over the airwaves? That's your position?Sam Lowry said:It's not clear that it would have been a "leftist agency" any more than the FCC, whose current chairwoman is a Democrat first appointed by Barack Obama. Her activities obviously have a great deal of relevance to free speech, but I don't see anyone panicking over it.Mothra said:So, the creation of a leftist agency that "would have regulated speech" given "the left['s]...increasing tendency toward censorship" is simply a minor concern for you? The left regulating the First Amendment is nothing to get too worked up about, and certainly not something someone would label as "dangerous" or "un-American"?Sam Lowry said:I told you on the first page (and many times since) that I understood the potential problems but thought we should know some specifics before freaking out. You have yet to provide any, nor have you articulated any "stark difference" between this and other free speech issues.Mothra said:
If you had stated that first sentence early on in this thread, any debate, as between us at least (and most likely several other posters), would have probably ended at that point, as that is what I have been saying from the get go. I am not sure why it took you so long to acknowledge that, nor why you have repeatedly downplayed and argued against the dangers of such an agency. You've lacked consistency on this thread.
That said, I am still curious how such an agency is in any way consistent with American values. Yes, there are very limited regulations on free speech that currently exist. But those limitations in no way set a precedent for the formation of an agency to protect the American people from information that the partisans in charge deem harmful to Americans. That is starkly different from the laws on defamation and fraud, as you well know.
Any unprecedented laws the have the ability to impinge on one of our most cherished constitutional rights are simply not consistent with American values, and are therefore rightly labeled un-American.
You are a trip, Sam.
I assumed you were a lawyer and had the legal training and education to understand the difference between fraud, defamation and FCC regulations on what can be broadcast. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into how the laws we have on the books do not set a precedent for a leftist agency to regulate our First Amendment rights. As I suggested above, those things should be self-evident to any reasonable conservative.
But let's assume the FCC has far greater power to limit content than stated above: your position is because there is already an agency that has certain powers to regulate TV and radio broadcasts, conservatives shouldn't be overly concerned with the creation of a brand new agency run by partisans that has the potential to regulate our First Amended rights?
So, the answer to my question is no big deal and nothing to get too concerned about?
Ah, so you're referring to the Dept. of Homeland Security then? And you think that limited function of the Dept. is a good idea and nothing to be too concerned about, I take it?
Actually, the board in questioned was created in order to "review questions of privacy and civil liberty for online content." As you have acknowledged, the capacity for it to be abused is certainly there.
Actually, the board in questioned was created in order to "review questions of privacy and civil liberty for online content." As you have acknowledged, the capacity for it to be abused is certainly there.
Again, all agencies have the capacity for abuse. It is a good idea for the government to have a limited role in dealing with disinformation, particularly from foreign sources. If you disagree then your problem isn't really with the DGB or even with the Democrats in charge.Mothra said:
Ah, so you're referring to the Dept. of Homeland Security then? And you think that limited function of the Dept. is a good idea and nothing to be too concerned about, I take it?
Actually, the board in questioned was created in order to "review questions of privacy and civil liberty for online content." As you have acknowledged, the capacity for it to be abused is certainly there.
So, you're concerned with the new agency in question having the capacity to regulate speech and being abused by partisans, but also think the agency is a good idea to regulate disinformation? And so, say, if said agency decides that a story such as the Hunter Biden laptop story from the NYP is based on "Russian disinformation," you're cool with the agency calling it such and colluding with Big Tech to censor such information?Sam Lowry said:Again, all agencies have the capacity for abuse. It is a good idea for the government to have a limited role in dealing with disinformation, particularly from foreign sources. If you disagree then your problem isn't really with the DGB or even with the Democrats in charge.Mothra said:
Ah, so you're referring to the Dept. of Homeland Security then? And you think that limited function of the Dept. is a good idea and nothing to be too concerned about, I take it?
Actually, the board in questioned was created in order to "review questions of privacy and civil liberty for online content." As you have acknowledged, the capacity for it to be abused is certainly there.
The laptop issue involved the FBI, not the DHS, and technically the story wasn't removed because it was disinformation. It was removed because it violated Twitter's policy against hacked material. Twitter has admitted this was a mistake. As for the legality, I haven't studied it enough to say for sure. It's certainly not the first time the feds have leaned on a media company to suppress a story for national security reasons, legitimate or otherwise. It happens with newspapers all the time.Mothra said:So, you're concerned with the new agency in question having the capacity to regulate speech and being abused by partisans, but also think the agency is a good idea to regulate disinformation? And so, say, if said agency decides that a story such as the Hunter Biden laptop story from the NYP is based on "Russian disinformation," you're cool with the agency calling it such and colluding with Big Tech to censor such information?Sam Lowry said:Again, all agencies have the capacity for abuse. It is a good idea for the government to have a limited role in dealing with disinformation, particularly from foreign sources. If you disagree then your problem isn't really with the DGB or even with the Democrats in charge.Mothra said:
Ah, so you're referring to the Dept. of Homeland Security then? And you think that limited function of the Dept. is a good idea and nothing to be too concerned about, I take it?
Actually, the board in questioned was created in order to "review questions of privacy and civil liberty for online content." As you have acknowledged, the capacity for it to be abused is certainly there.
Sam Lowry said:The laptop issue involved the FBI, not the DHS, and technically the story wasn't removed because it was disinformation. It was removed because it violated Twitter's policy against hacked material. Twitter has admitted this was a mistake. As for the legality, I haven't studied it enough to say for sure. It's certainly not the first time the feds have leaned on a media company to suppress a story for national security reasons, legitimate or otherwise. It happens with newspapers all the time.Mothra said:So, you're concerned with the new agency in question having the capacity to regulate speech and being abused by partisans, but also think the agency is a good idea to regulate disinformation? And so, say, if said agency decides that a story such as the Hunter Biden laptop story from the NYP is based on "Russian disinformation," you're cool with the agency calling it such and colluding with Big Tech to censor such information?Sam Lowry said:Again, all agencies have the capacity for abuse. It is a good idea for the government to have a limited role in dealing with disinformation, particularly from foreign sources. If you disagree then your problem isn't really with the DGB or even with the Democrats in charge.Mothra said:
Ah, so you're referring to the Dept. of Homeland Security then? And you think that limited function of the Dept. is a good idea and nothing to be too concerned about, I take it?
Actually, the board in questioned was created in order to "review questions of privacy and civil liberty for online content." As you have acknowledged, the capacity for it to be abused is certainly there.
Mine was a hypothetical loosely based on actual events. Trying to figure out where you draw the line. You say the ministry of truth concerns you but then suggest it's needed to fight disinformation. I'm not sure exactly what you believe.
I draw the line at any violation of 1st Amendment rights, including the right to hear as well as the right to speak. I don't always agree with how the government characterizes disinformation. The question then is what they are doing about it and whether my rights are being protected. Needed operations would be, for example, those that counter election interference or human trafficking. Concerning ones would be, for example, those that treat dissenting opinions as disinformation.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:The laptop issue involved the FBI, not the DHS, and technically the story wasn't removed because it was disinformation. It was removed because it violated Twitter's policy against hacked material. Twitter has admitted this was a mistake. As for the legality, I haven't studied it enough to say for sure. It's certainly not the first time the feds have leaned on a media company to suppress a story for national security reasons, legitimate or otherwise. It happens with newspapers all the time.Mothra said:So, you're concerned with the new agency in question having the capacity to regulate speech and being abused by partisans, but also think the agency is a good idea to regulate disinformation? And so, say, if said agency decides that a story such as the Hunter Biden laptop story from the NYP is based on "Russian disinformation," you're cool with the agency calling it such and colluding with Big Tech to censor such information?Sam Lowry said:Again, all agencies have the capacity for abuse. It is a good idea for the government to have a limited role in dealing with disinformation, particularly from foreign sources. If you disagree then your problem isn't really with the DGB or even with the Democrats in charge.Mothra said:
Ah, so you're referring to the Dept. of Homeland Security then? And you think that limited function of the Dept. is a good idea and nothing to be too concerned about, I take it?
Actually, the board in questioned was created in order to "review questions of privacy and civil liberty for online content." As you have acknowledged, the capacity for it to be abused is certainly there.
Mine was a hypothetical loosely based on actual events. Trying to figure out where you draw the line. You say the ministry of truth concerns you but then suggest it's needed to fight disinformation. I'm not sure exactly what you believe.
Mothra said:As I said, read the thread. Next time, probably best not to make assumptions based on something said on page 1 of a 16-page thread.Porteroso said:Mothra said:Pearls before swine. He's too glib to be reasoned with.cowboycwr said:Funny you only randomly select one of his many posts on this thread about it. And not even his first.Porteroso said:Mothra said:
Ah yes the ministry of truth. I remember when Sam put his full weight and support behind this failed Biden dystopian proposal.
Is intentionally misrepresenting posts some sort of fetish for you? Not that anyone other than yourself really cares. I went to the first page to see what you were talking about.Quote:
In reply to Motha
I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is.
FULL WEIGHT AND SUPPORT
The thread is full of posts from him defending the board, asking how it is bad, what it would do that would be bad, why policing disinformation is bad, ignoring questions about what is disinformation, who will determine what is or isn't disinformation, etc.
Yes he supported it.
I don't have time to read all your posts, sorry. Are you telling me he went from explicitly not supporting it to supporting it? I doubt it. I bet he just had some fun poking holes in your posts. Made you mad obviously. Calm down bud.
When its the opposite of what you claim yeah I'm going to make that assumption. Are you now taking over the "don't assume" trope from the democrat zealots? I'll tell you the same thing I tell them. Life is too short to have to know everything in order to have an opinion. We all make assumptions and it's completely fine.
If "read the thread" is your only response to claiming someone said the opposite of what they said, you are fill of it as always.
Sam Lowry said:The laptop issue involved the FBI, not the DHS, and technically the story wasn't removed because it was disinformation. It was removed because it violated Twitter's policy against hacked material. Twitter has admitted this was a mistake. As for the legality, I haven't studied it enough to say for sure. It's certainly not the first time the feds have leaned on a media company to suppress a story for national security reasons, legitimate or otherwise. It happens with newspapers all the time.Mothra said:So, you're concerned with the new agency in question having the capacity to regulate speech and being abused by partisans, but also think the agency is a good idea to regulate disinformation? And so, say, if said agency decides that a story such as the Hunter Biden laptop story from the NYP is based on "Russian disinformation," you're cool with the agency calling it such and colluding with Big Tech to censor such information?Sam Lowry said:Again, all agencies have the capacity for abuse. It is a good idea for the government to have a limited role in dealing with disinformation, particularly from foreign sources. If you disagree then your problem isn't really with the DGB or even with the Democrats in charge.Mothra said:
Ah, so you're referring to the Dept. of Homeland Security then? And you think that limited function of the Dept. is a good idea and nothing to be too concerned about, I take it?
Actually, the board in questioned was created in order to "review questions of privacy and civil liberty for online content." As you have acknowledged, the capacity for it to be abused is certainly there.
Oopsy. The standard Democrat commie excuse