Re: More Americans now say government should take steps to restrict false information online than in 2018

On 8/19/21 11:47 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 8/19/2021 8:31 AM, Yak wrote:
>> On 8/19/21 11:15 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 8/19/2021 3:56 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/21 9:26 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On 8/18/2021 6:03 PM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/18/21 8:53 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/18/2021 5:20 PM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/18/21 7:07 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/2021 12:17 PM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americans-now-say-government-should-take-steps-to-restrict-false-information-online-than-in-2018/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Roughly half of U.S. adults (48%) now say the government
>>>>>>>>>> should take steps to restrict false information online, even
>>>>>>>>>> if it means losing some freedom to access and publish content.
>>>>>>>>>> That is up from 39% in 2018."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We had a good run.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does the First Amendment protect false statements?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We know for certain it does not protect perjury or fraud, and in
>>>>>>> many cases defamation. On the other hand, punishing false
>>>>>>> statements could chill truthful speech. For example, if someone
>>>>>>> were punished for saying "Islam promotes murder" that could chill
>>>>>>> free discussion about the role of religion in society.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think the answer is at all clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The govt should be a protector of speech, not the advocate of
>>>>>> chilling it...and most certainly not the final arbiter of what
>>>>>> is/is not misinformation, particularly at the expense of freedom
>>>>>> and liberty. The poll results, if they are to be believed, are
>>>>>> troubling, if not borderline terrifying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have problems with laws that proscribe perjury, fraud and
>>>>> defamation?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. But, the arbiter of what is/is not misinformation is the jury,
>>>> not some govt appointed bureaucrat.
>>>
>>> What government appointed bureaucrat has been deciding what is
>>> misinformation?
>>
>> I'm not saying one is, 
> 
> You fucking liar.
> 
>>>> Furthermore, the standard for what is/is not information under the
>>>> scenarios you listed are high, as they should be.
>>>
>>> I don't understand your point.
>>
>> The point is that the punishments (restrictions on speech) meted out
>> for defamation, perjury, fraud, etc. are generally delivered by a jury
>> using beyond all reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence
>> standards.
> 
> No, the *point* is, false information is not necessarily protected
> speech, nor should it be.

Then the GOVERNMENT should STOP spreading FALSE INFORMATION.

When they lie the persons doing the lying should be sent to prison for
it as if it is Perjury because they're lying to the rest of the
Government and the FBI and Judges and to WE THE PEOPLE.

The first thing that will stop the false information is to make it
illegal for FEDERAL EMPLOYEES to lie to anyone regarding their work or
other parts of government activity.

Including the CIA and the FBI.... Secrets are NOT told but FALSE
INFORMATION is NOT a secret it's perjury.



-- 
That's Karma

*The first rule of SURVIVAL CLUB is*
Never trust what Democrats or Marxists tell you. Make them prove it with
actual verifiable facts and science. And if you didn't find the
duplicitous lies in what the Marxist-Democrats told you then you didn't
dig deep enough. The *Gruber Doctrine* is the Marxist-Democrat plan that
says it's "to the Democrats advantage to have a lack of transparency and
then lie about everything".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI



*The next rule of SURVIVAL CLUB is*
39 - The problem with so many Democrat scams is that, like a bowl of
ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bullshit in it to ruin the
whole bowl.