acesfull86
Well-known member
I agree with the judge’s ruling on this one - the law was way too broad and way too vague.
Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Having recently watched a parent bring a 10ish year old into a viewing of Oppenheimer, I can assure you they can do it in a movie theater.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-social-media-censorship-harms-us-all-6cec6e55?mod=opinion_lead_pos9
The chilling of one insightful opinion from a scientist or physician can profoundly alter scientific and medical debate. So can the suppression of one patient’s report of an adverse vaccine event. Therefore, when vast numbers of Americans are chilled in their scientific and medical speech, it dangerously injures all of us, who suffer a diminished opportunity to learn and to reconsider and refine our own views. The government’s chilling policies appear to have had a massive and cascading effect in reducing the diversity of opinion and the quality of public discussion.
Through its chilling policies, the government has injured the plaintiffs and all other Americans directly, not only through the platforms. And because that censorship deprives everyone of access to a variety of views, the plaintiffs can’t be protected without an injunction against the full range of censorship.
In dampening public discussion, the government has directly affected every one of us, confining what we hear as well as what we say. Each of us, including the plaintiffs, suffers from the injury to the rights of others. None of us have our full freedom of speech unless everyone else has it too.
——————
Yup
The chilling of one insightful opinion from a scientist or physician can profoundly alter scientific and medical debate. So can the suppression of one patient’s report of an adverse vaccine event. Therefore, when vast numbers of Americans are chilled in their scientific and medical speech, it dangerously injures all of us, who suffer a diminished opportunity to learn and to reconsider and refine our own views. The government’s chilling policies appear to have had a massive and cascading effect in reducing the diversity of opinion and the quality of public discussion.
Through its chilling policies, the government has injured the plaintiffs and all other Americans directly, not only through the platforms. And because that censorship deprives everyone of access to a variety of views, the plaintiffs can’t be protected without an injunction against the full range of censorship.
In dampening public discussion, the government has directly affected every one of us, confining what we hear as well as what we say. Each of us, including the plaintiffs, suffers from the injury to the rights of others. None of us have our full freedom of speech unless everyone else has it too.
——————
Yup
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I would be surprised if in the end the courts ruled that the administrative branch of government was prohibited from pointing out the harm done by a platform that provides a megaphone for harmful disinformation.
Otoh it is obvious that the administrative branch should be prohibited from threatening private companies if they did not take down such disinformation. And those threats can include regulatory scrutiny, withholding of licenses, etc. That should be impermissible.
But it should be permissible to subject Nick Clegg or Mark Zuckerberg to a sleepless night or two by pointing out they have blood on their hands.
Otoh it is obvious that the administrative branch should be prohibited from threatening private companies if they did not take down such disinformation. And those threats can include regulatory scrutiny, withholding of licenses, etc. That should be impermissible.
But it should be permissible to subject Nick Clegg or Mark Zuckerberg to a sleepless night or two by pointing out they have blood on their hands.
You don't real female strippers doing this stuff in public much. Just drag queens.
You don't see much in the way of drag queens reading to people in old folks homes instead of schools
Unless you're naïve most of us see what's going on here.
Who gets to decide what's disinformation? That's why what the government is doing is dangerous.
sturg33
I
Only the left can
Only the left can dismantle free speech
Then when the inevitable push back happens, they cry like little babies
Booohooo
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
We all get to participate in making the case for what is true and what is not. And if a federal agency has information that pertains to a particular discussion it should be able to weigh in. I can't imagine that the courts will rule otherwise.
That's exactly what's it's about. They want to make themselves the arbiters of truth and silence people such as us.
sturg33
I
It helps that they are always wrong, along with you.
It's a fantastic contraband indicator for us
They can release what they have to the public but can't be in the "truth" business. If you give the government a say in a matter they will always abuse it as we've seen.
I know you don't believe it now but you will in the future when we start to notice more and more doctors come out and say the censoring of HCQ and Ivermectin information cost a lot of human lives.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I don't think government should be able to threaten businesses by withholding tax benefits, contracts, regulatory approvals, etc.
But government can and should be able to criticize businesses and point out where their actions are harmful. And if a business provides a tool for providing feedback and corrections to bad information, everyone (including the administrative branch) should be able to make use of those tools.
There are obviously some grey areas and fine lines where the jurisprudence is evolving. Especially with respect to social media platforms. I suspect some of these issues with end up with the Supreme Court.
But government can and should be able to criticize businesses and point out where their actions are harmful. And if a business provides a tool for providing feedback and corrections to bad information, everyone (including the administrative branch) should be able to make use of those tools.
There are obviously some grey areas and fine lines where the jurisprudence is evolving. Especially with respect to social media platforms. I suspect some of these issues with end up with the Supreme Court.
Last edited:
sturg33
I
We never got the lecturing buffoons take on the mayo clinic agreeing with Tapates wife
He sits out a lot of topics he used to be highly engaged in
Mayo took it down. We know why. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahb...n-hydroxychloroquine-n2629005#google_vignette