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.

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.

"Peacefully protest." Sure, after burning a historic Chuch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't get it.
The "intelligence professionsls" were some of the people who were censoring speech of Americans that had NOTHING to do with Russia or any other foreign power.
Just one example:

The seventh Twitter Files installment sheds more light on the interactions between the FBI and Twitter, highlighting a revolving door — Twitter hired many former FBI employees — and a level of information sharing that may further erode trust in these institutions. Among other things, Part 7 suggests the government’s zeal to combat foreign influence operations influenced Twitter’s decision to suppress the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop under its hacked materials policy — even though former Twitter Head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth acknowledged it wasn’t “clearly violative” of the policy.

https://www.thefire.org/news/yes-you-should-be-worried-about-fbis-relationship-twitter

[Anonymous]

Omg.
I am so embarrassed. I thought we were having a serious discussion.
Then you cited the Twitter files…
This forum used to be great, and I’m so sad at what it’s become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Omg.
I am so embarrassed. I thought we were having a serious discussion.
Then you cited the Twitter files…
This forum used to be great, and I’m so sad at what it’s become.

[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.

Here you go spreading disinformation. The military was never used to clear out the "mostly peaceful" protesters from the church. The same church that was set on fire earlier in the day/week btw by the mostly peaceful protesters.

I didn't memory hole anything, it just never happened.

Again since you are so slow in picking this up, people are allowed to say you don't need to get vaccinated.

[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.

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.

yesss … free speech has nothing to do with the first amendment.

[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.

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.

Not the topic of discussion. We are talking about Biden's Ministry of Truth and the censorship he has engaged in by proxy with SM.

And there are guardrails around when and where people can protest.

[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.

Here you go spreading disinformation. The military was never used to clear out the "mostly peaceful" protesters from the church. The same church that was set on fire earlier in the day/week btw by the mostly peaceful protesters.

I didn't memory hole anything, it just never happened.

Again since you are so slow in picking this up, people are allowed to say you don't need to get vaccinated.

General Milley disagreed with it.https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/06/11/milley-says-he-was-wrong-to-accompany-trump-on-church-walk-during-george-floyd-protests/

[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.

Again please post a 1A case or statute on point. I assume that if there was something like a coded spy message people were unknowingly reposting, it could be removed. But the problem is the vagueness of “talking points” and “amplifying.” The Kremlin (and of course the US does this too) may try to exploit existing divisions in society. Just because there may be Kremlin propaganda on an issue does not mean the government can censor all speech on that issue. Obviously.

[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.

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.

Not the topic of discussion. We are talking about Biden's Ministry of Truth and the censorship he has engaged in by proxy with SM.

And there are guardrails around when and where people can protest.

Not familiar with Biden censoring any citizens..
I AM familiar with Trump trying to censoring people on Twitter.
Are you confusing Biden with Trump?

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3849819-trump-asked-twitter-to-take-down-derogatory-tweet-from-chrissy-teigen-whistleblower/amp/

[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.

Again please post a 1A case or statute on point. I assume that if there was something like a coded spy message people were unknowingly reposting, it could be removed. But the problem is the vagueness of “talking points” and “amplifying.” The Kremlin (and of course the US does this too) may try to exploit existing divisions in society. Just because there may be Kremlin propaganda on an issue does not mean the government can censor all speech on that issue. Obviously.

Article 1 disagrees with this post.

[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.

Again please post a 1A case or statute on point. I assume that if there was something like a coded spy message people were unknowingly reposting, it could be removed. But the problem is the vagueness of “talking points” and “amplifying.” The Kremlin (and of course the US does this too) may try to exploit existing divisions in society. Just because there may be Kremlin propaganda on an issue does not mean the government can censor all speech on that issue. Obviously.

I read tons of trash re: vaccinesBAD! When was it verboten to discuss vaccines after Biden took office? Where has any topic been forbidden?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again please post a 1A case or statute on point. I assume that if there was something like a coded spy message people were unknowingly reposting, it could be removed. But the problem is the vagueness of “talking points” and “amplifying.” The Kremlin (and of course the US does this too) may try to exploit existing divisions in society. Just because there may be Kremlin propaganda on an issue does not mean the government can censor all speech on that issue. Obviously.

I read tons of trash re: vaccinesBAD! When was it verboten to discuss vaccines after Biden took office? Where has any topic been forbidden?

Do some research. Read up on Missouri v Biden. Lots of information there about government censorship under Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again please post a 1A case or statute on point. I assume that if there was something like a coded spy message people were unknowingly reposting, it could be removed. But the problem is the vagueness of “talking points” and “amplifying.” The Kremlin (and of course the US does this too) may try to exploit existing divisions in society. Just because there may be Kremlin propaganda on an issue does not mean the government can censor all speech on that issue. Obviously.

I read tons of trash re: vaccinesBAD! When was it verboten to discuss vaccines after Biden took office? Where has any topic been forbidden?

Do some research. Read up on Missouri v Biden. Lots of information there about government censorship under Biden.

I’ve been reading. It’s not a great ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again please post a 1A case or statute on point. I assume that if there was something like a coded spy message people were unknowingly reposting, it could be removed. But the problem is the vagueness of “talking points” and “amplifying.” The Kremlin (and of course the US does this too) may try to exploit existing divisions in society. Just because there may be Kremlin propaganda on an issue does not mean the government can censor all speech on that issue. Obviously.

Article 1 disagrees with this post.

sooo … you think Article 1 means Congress does not have to follow the First Amendment? Curiouser and curiouser!