Censorship has started.

[blue32]

What I honestly believe is that the bill itself allows for collection and analysis of information rather than suppression thereof. No, I don't trust information provided by or endorsed by the government. But as long as there are no provisos in the bill actually preventing the dissemination of contrary information from other sources--even the nefarious ones the government might see as distributing "propaganda"--then I see nothing that rises to the level of "censorship".

I can respect this. Well said. I guess we will see.

Ultimately I hate the fake news sites, but I also do not like the fact that biased companies (Funded by Soros for the left, or whomever on the right) can be the "buck stops here" when determining who is trustworthy. We all know the majority of media is biased towards the left and now things like Google, Reddit, YouTube, Twitter are censoring conservative viewpoints, where will it stop, whose going to provide the checks and balances for this when if an outside site brings in alternative sources it can be labeled as "fake". I see no good things from this, but will see...

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Do you have something else to contribute or are you going to troll me today. I see you take turns around here, so today must be mine? LOL.

Yes I work for them. I love working for the country, but that doesn't mean I think it is infallible, and I don't think it's capable of determining what is "true" or "false" for a citizen to see and consume.

I just think it's funny how you talk about the bill of rights and then just a few posts later say that the government hasn't done anything correctly.

Since when has the Government ever done something correctly for the people?

I can think of many things that the government has done correctly for the people.

 

[Denny Crane]

No.

You do not lose your right to freedom of speech after committing a felony.

Still is natural rights.

You lose the right to vote, too. Also they throw you in jail.

 

[Denny Crane]

You can't tell "fire" in a crowded theater, unless you are directing a firing squad.

You sure can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Nobody cut your tongue out.

 

[Denny Crane]

I've now taken the time to read the bill, particularly section 3-b "Functions", which details the activities of "The Center for Information Analysis and Response." Having read through it, I fail to see anything therein that would allow the government to (in your words) "start using this bill against media/journalists that do not 'fall in line' with the narrative that the Government wants to push."

Since I don't see anything nefarious, clearly I'm "literatacy <sic> challenged", so perhaps you could assist a poor mental midget such as myself in understanding what it is in this bill of which I should be so concerned?

The bill that allows government to spy on us is written the same way. It's like you expect government to follow the laws.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You lose the right to vote, too.

In all but two states, voting age citizens convicted of a felony are barred from voting for some period of time. Laws vary in each state. While many states restore voting rights to individuals automatically after they exit jail or prison, others permanently disenfranchise people with a past felony conviction or require they petition the government to have their right restored.

This is a short up-to-date state guide to voting for ex-offenders. For more, visit the resources on the right.

http://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/special-circumstances/voting-as-an-ex-offender/

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The bill that allows government to spy on us is written the same way. It's like you expect government to follow the laws.

If our concerns over government censorship are based on an assumption that the government won't follow the laws, then it follows that the introduction of new laws should have no impact on our concerns over government censorship.

 

[barfo]

The bill that allows government to spy on us is written the same way. It's like you expect government to follow the laws.

If you are a conspiracy theorist who believes the government does not obey the laws, then what does it matter what this bill says, and whether it becomes law or not?

barfo

Edit: Platypus beat me to that point.

 

[riverman]

free speech and guns....who wins?

 

[Denny Crane]

If our concerns over government censorship is based on an assumption that they won't follow the laws, then it follows that the introduction of new laws should have no impact on concerns over government censorship.

They interpret the laws to suit their needs. This bill authorizes spending.

I don't believe the bill is meant to censor The People. I'm not at all sure the government SHOULD censor anyone, including our enemies.

I just don't trust government to not stomp on our rights.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you are a conspiracy theorist who believes the government does not obey the laws, then what does it matter what this bill says, and whether it becomes law or not?

barfo

Edit: Platypus beat me to that point.

riverman beat me to your answer.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you are a conspiracy theorist who believes the government does not obey the laws, then what does it matter what this bill says, and whether it becomes law or not?

barfo

Edit: Platypus beat me to that point.

Obama says YOU are an international terrorist. He's ordered me to censor your posts.

Get it?

 

[blue32]

I just think it's funny how you talk about the bill of rights and then just a few posts later say that the government hasn't done anything correctly.



I can think of many things that the government has done correctly for the people.

OK maybe I was embellishing slightly. I just agree with Denny, that in this day and age, I don't trust them to not stomp on our rights.

 

[MarAzul]

Your right to freedom of speech can't be taken away from you.

At least not yet, give it time and I'm sure we can make it happen.

You wouldn't advocate an infringement because we already did one, would you?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

OK maybe I was embellishing slightly.

And now you've just answered your own question.

Do you have something else to contribute or are you going to troll me today.

I've contributed by trolling!

It's a gift.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You wouldn't advocate an infringement because we already did one, would you?

If there is a lot of money in it for me I sure as hell would.

And our next President agrees with me.

Trump/Sly 2020!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

They interpret the laws to suit their needs. This bill authorizes spending.

I don't believe the bill is meant to censor The People. I'm not at all sure the government SHOULD censor anyone, including our enemies.

I just don't trust government to not stomp on our rights.

And I don't trust people not to overreact ridiculously to something the government does that doesn't actually indicate what those people think it does. You know, like this bill, that doesn't actually say anything about censoring anyone, foreign or domestic, ally or enemy.

But people will believe what they choose to believe, facts be damned.

 

[MarAzul]

If there is a lot of money in it for me I sure as hell would.

And our next President agrees with me.

Trump/Sly 2020!

I believe you.

 

[Denny Crane]

And I don't trust people not to overreact ridiculously to something the government does that doesn't actually indicate what those people think it does. You know, like this bill, that doesn't actually say anything about censoring anyone, foreign or domestic, ally or enemy.

But people will believe what they choose to believe, facts be damned.

Define "foreign propaganda."

I think it's whatever barfo posts here.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Define "foreign propaganda."

I think it's whatever barfo posts here.

Why does it matter? Even if my posts are foreign propaganda, I can spread it all I want.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why does it matter? Even if my posts are foreign propaganda, I can spread it all I want.

Not if the government tells me (and the other sites you post) to remove the content.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Define "foreign propaganda."

I've been watching al jazeera a lot lately.

I'm open minded enough to give anything a try. Within reason.

It's really good folks. I'd describe it as something like BBC news with world wide coverage that isn't US dominated.

Just fucking with you, I had posted this before.

I've been following the Fox news thread below. It's interesting to get everyone's perspective on Fox, MSNBC, etc. I like to get my news from a variety of sources, what I'm finding hard is to get news with out some sort of left or right slant to it. Oddly enough a few years back I was trying to see some so Bin Laden video or beheading, I can't remember what it was, when I stumbled onto Al Jazeera. I thought it would be good for a laugh to see how much the Middle East hated America and what their spin on things would be.

Surprisingly they're not a bad news organization. They're pretty "fair and balanced" in what they present. It's also interesting to see what they feel are important news stories about the USA vs what we're feed in our daily news cycle. I'm not saying they're any better than the news providers we have here in the USA but it is a legitimate news provider.

It's bookmark worthy and you might want to check it out every couple of days.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Not if the government tells me (and the other sites you post) to remove the content.

And what would be the basis for that directive? And how does this bill impact this hypothetical situation?

If you delete posts identified by the government as foreign propaganda, that's your choice. That's not government censorship unless there's a governmentally-imposed penalty for non-compliance.

 

[Denny Crane]

And what would be the basis for that directive? And how does this bill impact this hypothetical situation?

If you delete posts identified by the government as foreign propaganda, that's your choice. That's not government censorship unless there's a governmentally-imposed penalty for non-compliance.

The bill you defend establishes a government ministry of truth.

It establishes the power to enact a "national strategy."

It establishes a fund that will go to news agencies the government wants to establish as "truth sayers."

Do I really need to go on?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The bill you defend establishes a government ministry of truth.

It establishes the power to enact a "national strategy."

It establishes a fund that will go to news agencies the government wants to establish as "truth sayers."

Do I really need to go on?

The bolded section is inaccurate. Here are the sections of the bill that reference the "National Strategy":

• Section 2-5 mentions that it is the sense of Congress (ie, their belief) that "the United States Government should develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign disinformation and propaganda and assert leadership in developing a fact-based strategic narrative". No power established here.
• Section 3-2 states that one of the purposes of the "Center" (that to which you refer as a "Ministry of Truth") is "to establish a framework for the integration of critical data and analysis on foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts into the development of national strategy." No strategy being created here either.

The bill only allows for a department that collects and analyzes data, and sharing the results of that analysis. Nothing more. You're creating the rest in your own mind.

 

[Denny Crane]

The bolded section is inaccurate. Here are the sections of the bill that reference the "National Strategy":

• Section 2-5 mentions that it is the sense of Congress (ie, their belief) that "the United States Government should develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign disinformation and propaganda and assert leadership in developing a fact-based strategic narrative". No power established here.
• Section 3-2 states that one of the purposes of the "Center" (that to which you refer as a "Ministry of Truth") is "to establish a framework for the integration of critical data and analysis on foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts into the development of national strategy." No strategy being created here either.

The bill only allows for a department that collects and analyzes data, and sharing the results of that analysis. Nothing more. You're creating the rest in your own mind.

(5) the United States Government should develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign disinformation and propaganda and assert leadership in developing a fact-based strategic narrative; and

...



I'm not sure why you're defending the government deciding what the "truth" is and picking and choosing which newspapers and TV outlets get government checks to spout the government's favored propaganda.

 

[blue32]

(5) the United States Government should develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign disinformation and propaganda and assert leadership in developing a fact-based strategic narrative; and

...

View attachment 11517

I'm not sure why you're defending the government deciding what the "truth" is and picking and choosing which newspapers and TV outlets get government checks to spout the government's favored propaganda.

The bill you defend establishes a government ministry of truth.

It establishes the power to enact a "national strategy."

It establishes a fund that will go to news agencies the government wants to establish as "truth sayers."

Do I really need to go on?

Bingo, bango, bongo, bish bash bosh.

Denny's got the point.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

OK maybe I was embellishing slightly. I just agree with Denny, that in this day and age, I don't trust them to not stomp on our rights.

Who is "them"?

 

[Denny Crane]

The government already effectively censors any political party not Democrat or Republican.

 

[Denny Crane]

Who is "them"?

Not "us"