DHS Creating "Disinformation Governance Board"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

Perhaps that is because your opinion and views are in line with this administration.

No, it’s because the guy that ran the last administration is bragging that he will invoke the Insurrection Act to put US military in the streets to quell the inevitable protests if he wins again.

We have a binary choice ahead of us.
One guy has already retaliated against protesters with the force of the military
And promises to do it again.
The other guys asked Twitter to pretty please not post Russian psyops against our citizens.
Those are the choices

Nice spin. And, when was the force of the military used? Was that during the riots of 2020? IOW - justified use?

Biden admin censored the speech of citizens..... not Russians

Spin? I’m embarrassed you are so uninformed.
Trump used force to clear peaceful protesters. He used the military to do it. You should be outraged.
The Rosenbergs were citizens too. Hansen was a citizen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

Perhaps that is because your opinion and views are in line with this administration.

No, it’s because the guy that ran the last administration is bragging that he will invoke the Insurrection Act to put US military in the streets to quell the inevitable protests if he wins again.

We have a binary choice ahead of us.
One guy has already retaliated against protesters with the force of the military
And promises to do it again.
The other guys asked Twitter to pretty please not post Russian psyops against our citizens.
Those are the choices

Nice spin. And, when was the force of the military used? Was that during the riots of 2020? IOW - justified use?

Biden admin censored the speech of citizens..... not Russians

Spin? I’m embarrassed you are so uninformed.
Trump used force to clear peaceful protesters. He used the military to do it. You should be outraged.
The Rosenbergs were citizens too. Hansen was a citizen.

yes and Trump’s actions are exactly why we need strong 1A protections. still stumped as to why you don’t get this. is your view that 1A jurisprudence should expressly favor Democrat’s political speech? Because legally, there is not all that much difference between Stacy Abrams claiming her election was stolen and the “big lie” claims, at least as far as speech alone goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

Perhaps that is because your opinion and views are in line with this administration.

No, it’s because the guy that ran the last administration is bragging that he will invoke the Insurrection Act to put US military in the streets to quell the inevitable protests if he wins again.

We have a binary choice ahead of us.
One guy has already retaliated against protesters with the force of the military
And promises to do it again.
The other guys asked Twitter to pretty please not post Russian psyops against our citizens.
Those are the choices

Nice spin. And, when was the force of the military used? Was that during the riots of 2020? IOW - justified use?

Biden admin censored the speech of citizens..... not Russians

Spin? I’m embarrassed you are so uninformed.
Trump used force to clear peaceful protesters. He used the military to do it. You should be outraged.
The Rosenbergs were citizens too. Hansen was a citizen.

yes and Trump’s actions are exactly why we need strong 1A protections. still stumped as to why you don’t get this. is your view that 1A jurisprudence should expressly favor Democrat’s political speech? Because legally, there is not all that much difference between Stacy Abrams claiming her election was stolen and the “big lie” claims, at least as far as speech alone goes.

How am I arguing against 1A? I’m not.
But foreign agents have never had 1A protections. Why do you want them protected now? Is it because you find it politically advantageous?
Did Stacy Abram’s foment violence and attempt to subvert democracy? She did not. She sought redress in the courts, and was publicly critical. That’s how it works. That’s ok.
Coercing state officials to throw out votes is not free speech. Inciting a riot is never free speech. Inciting a riot with the express purpose of subverting a legal and fair election? Not protected speech.
I’m not ok with our government allowing foreign adversaries to harm us. They are supposed to provide for the national defense. A catastrophic collapse of our heath care system is a legitimate threat to our national security. Americans can be unknowing patsies, but they are still hurting our national security, and it’s the job of our government to protect us from that.
Freedom of speech is the bedrock of our democracy.
Allowing foreign enemies to pervert that right and use it as a tool to destroy the very fabric of our existence can’t be acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

Perhaps that is because your opinion and views are in line with this administration.

No, it’s because the guy that ran the last administration is bragging that he will invoke the Insurrection Act to put US military in the streets to quell the inevitable protests if he wins again.

We have a binary choice ahead of us.
One guy has already retaliated against protesters with the force of the military
And promises to do it again.
The other guys asked Twitter to pretty please not post Russian psyops against our citizens.
Those are the choices

Nice spin. And, when was the force of the military used? Was that during the riots of 2020? IOW - justified use?

Biden admin censored the speech of citizens..... not Russians

Spin? I’m embarrassed you are so uninformed.
Trump used force to clear peaceful protesters. He used the military to do it. You should be outraged.
The Rosenbergs were citizens too. Hansen was a citizen.

yes and Trump’s actions are exactly why we need strong 1A protections. still stumped as to why you don’t get this. is your view that 1A jurisprudence should expressly favor Democrat’s political speech? Because legally, there is not all that much difference between Stacy Abrams claiming her election was stolen and the “big lie” claims, at least as far as speech alone goes.

Gee last time I checked, Stacy Abrams didn't enlist the aid of violent gangs of thugs like the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers and didn't plot and organize an attack on the Georgia State Capitol and attempt to overthrow the election.

Stop with your #whatabout and #bothsides nonsense. It's not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Covid truths" like microchips and mind control 😆

The PP who thinks she's on the righteous side of truth and justice for continually yammering on about "yabut covid came from China" sounds like a master of the obvious but an absolute idiot.

You know damn well that very few people bought into the microchips or mind control (that is a new one to me).

We do know that, among other things, Covid likely came from a lab; having the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the virus; masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid; Hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower Covid mortality in a recent French study; there are side effects associated with the vaccine - myocarditis and irregular menstrual bleeding being just two; and the laptop does belong to Hunter Biden.

Many of the statements above were censored on social media - and in media in general.

Polling shows 70% of Republicans believe the "election was stolen" LIE.

It's a LIE. And it was directly responsible for the violence of J6. It was a violent, destructive lie that got people killed.

Stop with your LIES that "very few people believe that stuff."

Stop pretending that it's all free fair game to tell whatever lies you like no matter the consequences. You are part of the problem.

So, claiming that the election was stolen or illegitimate is speech that should be censored? Is that what you are saying?

In the case of the Big Steal lie, J6 happened and people died because of it. I think the main figures who promoted the lie should be punished, should be made to publicly retract their lies and apologize to America for them. There absolutely do need to be consequences.

The likelihood of that happening is up there with democrats acknowledging and apologizing for the lies that kept schools closed too long. Or allowing protesters to group together outside, but not kids on playgrounds or basketball courts.
Not happening.

You just keep coming with one dumb take after another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

You are going to need to show your work for this claim (bolded).

And petitioning the government is not what this topic is covering. We are discussing government deciding to if something is "disinformation" as a way of censoring it. Disinformation is still covered by 1A.

For all the democrats that claim to be the most educated and smartest people in the room, you are really struggling with understanding the basic concept of our First Amendment rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

Perhaps that is because your opinion and views are in line with this administration.

No, it’s because the guy that ran the last administration is bragging that he will invoke the Insurrection Act to put US military in the streets to quell the inevitable protests if he wins again.

We have a binary choice ahead of us.
One guy has already retaliated against protesters with the force of the military
And promises to do it again.
The other guys asked Twitter to pretty please not post Russian psyops against our citizens.
Those are the choices

Nice spin. And, when was the force of the military used? Was that during the riots of 2020? IOW - justified use?

Biden admin censored the speech of citizens..... not Russians

Spin? I’m embarrassed you are so uninformed.
Trump used force to clear peaceful protesters. He used the military to do it. You should be outraged.
The Rosenbergs were citizens too. Hansen was a citizen.

yes and Trump’s actions are exactly why we need strong 1A protections. still stumped as to why you don’t get this. is your view that 1A jurisprudence should expressly favor Democrat’s political speech? Because legally, there is not all that much difference between Stacy Abrams claiming her election was stolen and the “big lie” claims, at least as far as speech alone goes.

How am I arguing against 1A? I’m not.
But foreign agents have never had 1A protections. Why do you want them protected now? Is it because you find it politically advantageous?
Did Stacy Abram’s foment violence and attempt to subvert democracy? She did not. She sought redress in the courts, and was publicly critical. That’s how it works. That’s ok.
Coercing state officials to throw out votes is not free speech. Inciting a riot is never free speech. Inciting a riot with the express purpose of subverting a legal and fair election? Not protected speech.
I’m not ok with our government allowing foreign adversaries to harm us. They are supposed to provide for the national defense. A catastrophic collapse of our heath care system is a legitimate threat to our national security. Americans can be unknowing patsies, but they are still hurting our national security, and it’s the job of our government to protect us from that.
Freedom of speech is the bedrock of our democracy.
Allowing foreign enemies to pervert that right and use it as a tool to destroy the very fabric of our existence can’t be acceptable.

you’re assuming a whole lot here. nobody is arguing that you can’t prosecute spies. the kinds of statements that were arguably censored were not from “foreign adversaries.” questioning the covid vaccine does not make you a “foreign adversary.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

Perhaps that is because your opinion and views are in line with this administration.

No, it’s because the guy that ran the last administration is bragging that he will invoke the Insurrection Act to put US military in the streets to quell the inevitable protests if he wins again.

We have a binary choice ahead of us.
One guy has already retaliated against protesters with the force of the military
And promises to do it again.
The other guys asked Twitter to pretty please not post Russian psyops against our citizens.
Those are the choices

Nice spin. And, when was the force of the military used? Was that during the riots of 2020? IOW - justified use?

Biden admin censored the speech of citizens..... not Russians

Spin? I’m embarrassed you are so uninformed.
Trump used force to clear peaceful protesters. He used the military to do it. You should be outraged.
The Rosenbergs were citizens too. Hansen was a citizen.

yes and Trump’s actions are exactly why we need strong 1A protections. still stumped as to why you don’t get this. is your view that 1A jurisprudence should expressly favor Democrat’s political speech? Because legally, there is not all that much difference between Stacy Abrams claiming her election was stolen and the “big lie” claims, at least as far as speech alone goes.

Gee last time I checked, Stacy Abrams didn't enlist the aid of violent gangs of thugs like the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers and didn't plot and organize an attack on the Georgia State Capitol and attempt to overthrow the election.

Stop with your #whatabout and #bothsides nonsense. It's not even close.

Do you understand the difference between speech and action? It is absolutely protected speech for a MAGA or Stacy Abrams to say “the election was stolen.” the unlawful conduct is the act of breaking into the capitol. Instructing people to go break into the capitol would be incitement and not protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

You are going to need to show your work for this claim (bolded).

And petitioning the government is not what this topic is covering. We are discussing government deciding to if something is "disinformation" as a way of censoring it. Disinformation is still covered by 1A.

For all the democrats that claim to be the most educated and smartest people in the room, you are really struggling with understanding the basic concept of our First Amendment rights.

just want to say I am a Democratic 1A supporter! We exist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

You are going to need to show your work for this claim (bolded).

And petitioning the government is not what this topic is covering. We are discussing government deciding to if something is "disinformation" as a way of censoring it. Disinformation is still covered by 1A.

For all the democrats that claim to be the most educated and smartest people in the room, you are really struggling with understanding the basic concept of our First Amendment rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/06/08/timeline-trump-church-photo-op/

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-barr-used-loophole-deploy-national-guard-u-s-cities-ncna1236034

There is plenty online, but honestly you shouldn’t have memory holed this to begin with, not if you are a proponent of free speech.
And disinformation, when used as a weapon against our national security isn’t protected.
Telling Americans to get not get vaccinated , in order to kill us, collapse our healthcare system, and cause chaos isn’t protected speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

You are going to need to show your work for this claim (bolded).

And petitioning the government is not what this topic is covering. We are discussing government deciding to if something is "disinformation" as a way of censoring it. Disinformation is still covered by 1A.

For all the democrats that claim to be the most educated and smartest people in the room, you are really struggling with understanding the basic concept of our First Amendment rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/06/08/timeline-trump-church-photo-op/

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-barr-used-loophole-deploy-national-guard-u-s-cities-ncna1236034

There is plenty online, but honestly you shouldn’t have memory holed this to begin with, not if you are a proponent of free speech.
And disinformation, when used as a weapon against our national security isn’t protected.
Telling Americans to get not get vaccinated , in order to kill us, collapse our healthcare system, and cause chaos isn’t protected speech.

Please post the 1A case on point or stfu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

You are going to need to show your work for this claim (bolded).

And petitioning the government is not what this topic is covering. We are discussing government deciding to if something is "disinformation" as a way of censoring it. Disinformation is still covered by 1A.

For all the democrats that claim to be the most educated and smartest people in the room, you are really struggling with understanding the basic concept of our First Amendment rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/06/08/timeline-trump-church-photo-op/

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-barr-used-loophole-deploy-national-guard-u-s-cities-ncna1236034

There is plenty online, but honestly you shouldn’t have memory holed this to begin with, not if you are a proponent of free speech.
And disinformation, when used as a weapon against our national security isn’t protected.
Telling Americans to get not get vaccinated , in order to kill us, collapse our healthcare system, and cause chaos isn’t protected speech.

Please post the 1A case on point or stfu.

Don’t move the goalposts now. We are discussing free speech. Here is an example of Trump using the military against citizens exercising their right to peacefully protest.
If that bothers you, well good. It should bother you. Vote accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

Perhaps that is because your opinion and views are in line with this administration.

No, it’s because the guy that ran the last administration is bragging that he will invoke the Insurrection Act to put US military in the streets to quell the inevitable protests if he wins again.

We have a binary choice ahead of us.
One guy has already retaliated against protesters with the force of the military
And promises to do it again.
The other guys asked Twitter to pretty please not post Russian psyops against our citizens.
Those are the choices

Nice spin. And, when was the force of the military used? Was that during the riots of 2020? IOW - justified use?

Biden admin censored the speech of citizens..... not Russians

Spin? I’m embarrassed you are so uninformed.
Trump used force to clear peaceful protesters. He used the military to do it. You should be outraged.
The Rosenbergs were citizens too. Hansen was a citizen.

yes and Trump’s actions are exactly why we need strong 1A protections. still stumped as to why you don’t get this. is your view that 1A jurisprudence should expressly favor Democrat’s political speech? Because legally, there is not all that much difference between Stacy Abrams claiming her election was stolen and the “big lie” claims, at least as far as speech alone goes.

How am I arguing against 1A? I’m not.
But foreign agents have never had 1A protections. Why do you want them protected now? Is it because you find it politically advantageous?
Did Stacy Abram’s foment violence and attempt to subvert democracy? She did not. She sought redress in the courts, and was publicly critical. That’s how it works. That’s ok.
Coercing state officials to throw out votes is not free speech. Inciting a riot is never free speech. Inciting a riot with the express purpose of subverting a legal and fair election? Not protected speech.
I’m not ok with our government allowing foreign adversaries to harm us. They are supposed to provide for the national defense. A catastrophic collapse of our heath care system is a legitimate threat to our national security. Americans can be unknowing patsies, but they are still hurting our national security, and it’s the job of our government to protect us from that.
Freedom of speech is the bedrock of our democracy.
Allowing foreign enemies to pervert that right and use it as a tool to destroy the very fabric of our existence can’t be acceptable.

you’re assuming a whole lot here. nobody is arguing that you can’t prosecute spies. the kinds of statements that were arguably censored were not from “foreign adversaries.” questioning the covid vaccine does not make you a “foreign adversary.”

If you are sharing and amplifying Kremlin talking points, you are aiding a foreign adversary. You may not realize you are doing it, but the result and damage is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

Perhaps that is because your opinion and views are in line with this administration.

No, it’s because the guy that ran the last administration is bragging that he will invoke the Insurrection Act to put US military in the streets to quell the inevitable protests if he wins again.

We have a binary choice ahead of us.
One guy has already retaliated against protesters with the force of the military
And promises to do it again.
The other guys asked Twitter to pretty please not post Russian psyops against our citizens.
Those are the choices

Nice spin. And, when was the force of the military used? Was that during the riots of 2020? IOW - justified use?

Biden admin censored the speech of citizens..... not Russians

Spin? I’m embarrassed you are so uninformed.
Trump used force to clear peaceful protesters. He used the military to do it. You should be outraged.
The Rosenbergs were citizens too. Hansen was a citizen.

yes and Trump’s actions are exactly why we need strong 1A protections. still stumped as to why you don’t get this. is your view that 1A jurisprudence should expressly favor Democrat’s political speech? Because legally, there is not all that much difference between Stacy Abrams claiming her election was stolen and the “big lie” claims, at least as far as speech alone goes.

How am I arguing against 1A? I’m not.
But foreign agents have never had 1A protections. Why do you want them protected now? Is it because you find it politically advantageous?
Did Stacy Abram’s foment violence and attempt to subvert democracy? She did not. She sought redress in the courts, and was publicly critical. That’s how it works. That’s ok.
Coercing state officials to throw out votes is not free speech. Inciting a riot is never free speech. Inciting a riot with the express purpose of subverting a legal and fair election? Not protected speech.
I’m not ok with our government allowing foreign adversaries to harm us. They are supposed to provide for the national defense. A catastrophic collapse of our heath care system is a legitimate threat to our national security. Americans can be unknowing patsies, but they are still hurting our national security, and it’s the job of our government to protect us from that.
Freedom of speech is the bedrock of our democracy.
Allowing foreign enemies to pervert that right and use it as a tool to destroy the very fabric of our existence can’t be acceptable.

you’re assuming a whole lot here. nobody is arguing that you can’t prosecute spies. the kinds of statements that were arguably censored were not from “foreign adversaries.” questioning the covid vaccine does not make you a “foreign adversary.”

If you are sharing and amplifying Kremlin talking points, you are aiding a foreign adversary. You may not realize you are doing it, but the result and damage is the same.

Since the Kremlin doesn't publish all their talking points, anything you label a Kremlin talking point should be censored?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a moment in history where foreign adversaries used our first amendment speech against our democracy so prolifically and aggressively?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What about opinions propagated with the express purpose of destroying our way of life?
Are they damaging enough?
What about opinions spread for the express purpose of getting millions of Americans killed? Or for causing a catastrophic collapse of our healthcare system?
Is all of that protected speech?
I haven’t noticed this current administration use military force to stop citizens from exercising their first amendment rights…
I did see that with the last administration.
No one is currently stopping anyone from petitioning the government. I have no reason to believe a second Trump administration wouldn’t attack the people, just as he did his first time in office.
My first amendment right seem far safer with our current executive branch.

Perhaps that is because your opinion and views are in line with this administration.

No, it’s because the guy that ran the last administration is bragging that he will invoke the Insurrection Act to put US military in the streets to quell the inevitable protests if he wins again.

We have a binary choice ahead of us.
One guy has already retaliated against protesters with the force of the military
And promises to do it again.
The other guys asked Twitter to pretty please not post Russian psyops against our citizens.
Those are the choices

Nice spin. And, when was the force of the military used? Was that during the riots of 2020? IOW - justified use?

Biden admin censored the speech of citizens..... not Russians

Spin? I’m embarrassed you are so uninformed.
Trump used force to clear peaceful protesters. He used the military to do it. You should be outraged.
The Rosenbergs were citizens too. Hansen was a citizen.

yes and Trump’s actions are exactly why we need strong 1A protections. still stumped as to why you don’t get this. is your view that 1A jurisprudence should expressly favor Democrat’s political speech? Because legally, there is not all that much difference between Stacy Abrams claiming her election was stolen and the “big lie” claims, at least as far as speech alone goes.

How am I arguing against 1A? I’m not.
But foreign agents have never had 1A protections. Why do you want them protected now? Is it because you find it politically advantageous?
Did Stacy Abram’s foment violence and attempt to subvert democracy? She did not. She sought redress in the courts, and was publicly critical. That’s how it works. That’s ok.
Coercing state officials to throw out votes is not free speech. Inciting a riot is never free speech. Inciting a riot with the express purpose of subverting a legal and fair election? Not protected speech.
I’m not ok with our government allowing foreign adversaries to harm us. They are supposed to provide for the national defense. A catastrophic collapse of our heath care system is a legitimate threat to our national security. Americans can be unknowing patsies, but they are still hurting our national security, and it’s the job of our government to protect us from that.
Freedom of speech is the bedrock of our democracy.
Allowing foreign enemies to pervert that right and use it as a tool to destroy the very fabric of our existence can’t be acceptable.

you’re assuming a whole lot here. nobody is arguing that you can’t prosecute spies. the kinds of statements that were arguably censored were not from “foreign adversaries.” questioning the covid vaccine does not make you a “foreign adversary.”

If you are sharing and amplifying Kremlin talking points, you are aiding a foreign adversary. You may not realize you are doing it, but the result and damage is the same.

Since the Kremlin doesn't publish all their talking points, anything you label a Kremlin talking point should be censored?

Are you aware we have an intelligence service? We have a national security apparatus. We have career professionals who doggedly remain apolitical doing tireless work on our behalf.
Anything I label? No. I’m just an internet rando.