How can gov decide what is acceptable speech?

The Disinformation Czar. Any thoughts? It is a Definite present-day problem. Dems want to take power of the messaging that is getting 'out there'. Control of information? Obama suggested govt control of it. Suppressing speech? Would someone of the Dem party be OK with the Repub party having the power to do this?

@AverageJoe1
Free speech has to have limits. I assume you are ok then with unlimited free speech where anyone can scream FIRE in a crowded theater or go LET'S ATTACK THE CAPITOL.
Let's overthrow the government, we have 2000 volunteers already and we have thousands of AK47's and RPG's and we figure to blow the capitol building to smithereens.

I assume ALL of that would be WAY OK with you.

I can only assume you would actively CONDONE such speech.

@sonhouse said
@AverageJoe1
Free speech has to have limits. I assume you are ok then with unlimited free speech where anyone can scream FIRE in a crowded theater or go LET'S ATTACK THE CAPITOL.
Let's overthrow the government, we have 2000 volunteers already and we have thousands of AK47's and RPG's and we figure to blow the capitol building to smithereens.

I assume ALL of that would be WAY OK with you.

I can only assume you would actively CONDONE such speech.

I'm sorry, Sonhouse. I meant what do all of you think about it? Not what you think about me. Should I rephrase?

If you wish to limit free speech, you first need *somebody* to parse the speech and make a determination.

Here is what we see (or close to it) around the globe:
Candidate Bill: "Hi, I'm Bill and I think I can make a great president of Elbonia. Please vote for me"

Of course the current President of Elbonia claims that Bill's speech was unpatriotic and orders Bill to prison.

That is what this "limited free speech" will devolve to in time. Zero tolerance is the only way to go

@earl-of-trumps said
That is what this "limited free speech" will devolve to in time. Zero tolerance is the only way to go

America has had "limited free speech" for 230 years. When do you think America will "devolve"?

@sonhouse said
@AverageJoe1
Free speech has to have limits. I assume you are ok then with unlimited free speech where anyone can scream FIRE in a crowded theater or go LET'S ATTACK THE CAPITOL.
Let's overthrow the government, we have 2000 volunteers already and we have thousands of AK47's and RPG's and we figure to blow the capitol building to smithereens.

I assume ALL of that would be WAY OK with you.

I can only assume you would actively CONDONE such speech.

" I assume you are ok then with unlimited free speech where anyone can scream FIRE in a crowded theater or go LET'S ATTACK THE CAPITOL. "
I suggest that as this is currently "not" allowed, this comment is irrelevant to the point.
And as long as you let "me" set the limits, I am fine with it, or do you suggest yourself, maybe we could all go into a draw, who knows.

@averagejoe1 said
The Disinformation Czar. Any thoughts? It is a Definite present-day problem. Dems want to take power of the messaging that is getting 'out there'. Control of information? Obama suggested govt control of it. Suppressing speech? Would someone of the Dem party be OK with the Repub party having the power to do this?

You want to try Canada's bill C-16 that has compelled speech. Talk about nut jobs.

@averagejoe1 said
The Disinformation Czar. Any thoughts? It is a Definite present-day problem. Dems want to take power of the messaging that is getting 'out there'. Control of information? Obama suggested govt control of it. Suppressing speech? Would someone of the Dem party be OK with the Repub party having the power to do this?

Free speech .does not include
shouting ''FIRE,''in a crowded theater,
nor, would I imagine, screaming
''ELECTION FRAUD' from every media outlet imaginable,
where no fraud exists....Former Attorney General
William Barr said it best,
''It's a bunch of B*** S***.''. 😛 😆
My opine?
Maybe the slander and libel laws should be revisited.
Far too many opinion pieces, on both sides,
presented as 'real news,' and actual fact.

@vivify said
America has had "limited free speech" for 230 years. When do you think America will "devolve"?

Vivify, this premise runs through all of my threads.........everything has been fine for 230 years. Nothing but growth and prosperity. A few wrinkles to be sure, just like the markets go down, back up, down , back up, and up in the end. Not everyone is equal, but they never have been.
So what is all this screeching about change going on? What in the hell?

@averagejoe1 said
The Disinformation Czar. Any thoughts? It is a Definite present-day problem. Dems want to take power of the messaging that is getting 'out there'. Control of information? Obama suggested govt control of it. Suppressing speech? Would someone of the Dem party be OK with the Repub party having the power to do this?

It's simple, Joe.

True = Acceptable
False = Unacceptable

That's all.

@sonhouse said
@AverageJoe1
Free speech has to have limits. I assume you are ok then with unlimited free speech where anyone can scream FIRE in a crowded theater or go LET'S ATTACK THE CAPITOL.
Let's overthrow the government, we have 2000 volunteers already and we have thousands of AK47's and RPG's and we figure to blow the capitol building to smithereens.

I assume ALL of that would be WAY OK with you.

I can only assume you would actively CONDONE such speech.

"Free speech has to have limits."

Then move to Russia. They feel the same way you do.

Would you give me the power to edit other people's tweets?
Why not?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-disinformation-czar-demands-power-edit-other-peoples-tweets

Like Rand Paul said, debates are the best way to get to the truth.
Why are you on the debates forum if you hate debates so much? You obviously have no faith in debates to uncover the truth.

@suzianne said
It's simple, Joe.

True = Acceptable
False = Unacceptable

That's all.

I agree Suzianne. Good stuff. Black or White. Something is determined to be true, or not true. No in between, no smoke and mirrors, nor any of those pesky “What he meant by that was.....”
It has to be clear cut from the get go. Meetings, reports, everything, will be shorter. Laudits to he/she who pulls it off.

@sonhouse said
@AverageJoe1
Free speech has to have limits. I assume you are ok then with unlimited free speech where anyone can scream FIRE in a crowded theater or go LET'S ATTACK THE CAPITOL.
Let's overthrow the government, we have 2000 volunteers already and we have thousands of AK47's and RPG's and we figure to blow the capitol building to smithereens.

I assume ALL of that would be WAY OK with you.

I can only assume you would actively CONDONE such speech.

Sonhouse......that first line. Jesus. Sorry for you that its too late to delete this. But since you’ve bared the real SHouse, give us some more of the wisdom you live by. Take your time, we are still agape at what you said. Whew. Sure hope feds don’t raid my computer in search of certain people.

Like Rand Paul said, debates are the best way to get to the truth.

Why are so many ignorant people on the debates forum if they hate debates so much? They obviously have no faith in debates to uncover the truth.

https://rumble.com/v146mgu-rand-paul-trashes-disinformation-chief-to-his-face.html

@suzianne said
It's simple, Joe.

True = Acceptable
False = Unacceptable

That's all.

I agree suzianne, my truth is acceptable, yours is not, That what you mean??, or is it the other way around, I get a bit confused with the logic sometimes.
Yep simply simple, get it.