Why is it SO DAMN IMPORTANT to tell political lies? Is it because the truth of your politics sucks?

Sure seems that way. Just look at the right wingers pushing lies. Just look at Putin's authoritarian regime pushing lies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

that’s … not true at all. they can go after foreign spies but the actual ideas are protected.

The Tweets are literally created by fake accounts controlled by foreign governments. Those accounts are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

And as you well know, that scenario is a tiny slice of the “misinformation” that DHS would be trying to control. People have raised multiple examples in this thread of “misinformation” that was just an alternative viewpoint that was supressed during covid.

And yet people are re-tweeting foreign government bot accounts. Don't get mad when the foreign controlled accounts get shutdown and dismantled for peddling lies.

"I HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIE, DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES." *huff*puff*

I mean - that is pretty basic 1A stuff. Assuming no defamation or fraud or narrowly tailored statute, I have the right to lie.

There are a whole lot more instances than that, for example you do not have the right to threaten to harm or kill someone or destroy their property, that comes under "terroristic threat" statutes in most jurisdictions and is typically some level of felony.

NP.... The bottom line is your right to lie is just like your right to swing your fists wildly. It ends when it harms someone else. Disinformation, where it comes to elections, where it comes to public health and many other things does actually do harm to others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

Excellent point.

Totally false and mistaken point. I can spend all day writing in support of offical Chinese and Russian viewpoints and the Constitution protects me.

You can but China and Russia are not protected. You retweeting/reposting is not your speech. You didn’t author it.

Yes it is my speech. It literally is. There is no loss of 1st Amendment rights just because I might not know where it comes from or it is untrue. If I was knowingly conspiring with Russian officials to do things to disrupt an election or acting as an unregistered lobbyist, different matter. But barring very limited cases I can retweet whatever I want.

In the eyes of the law, being a knowing or unknowing participant in foreign disinformation is immaterial. I guess my question is, why do you think it is ok to amplify foreing disinformation at the peril to the safety and security of the United States of America?

because our founders and subsequent courts have wisely put into place strong and politicking neutral protections for speech as a core aspect of our constitutional democracy. smearing speech you don’t like as “foreign” or a “threat to national security” is a very common way to try to silence people you don’t like. there are tools to pursue the foreign actors directly for that conduct but our laws protect even mistaken or “harmful” speech.

The 1A gives the right to "smear" your speech as foreign and call it a threat to national security. Sure, you have the right to lie. Others have the right to call you out on it. That's how the 1A works.

It seems like the right only wants the consequences of free speech to apply to the left. Such hypocrites!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

Excellent point.

Totally false and mistaken point. I can spend all day writing in support of offical Chinese and Russian viewpoints and the Constitution protects me.

You can but China and Russia are not protected. You retweeting/reposting is not your speech. You didn’t author it.

Yes it is my speech. It literally is. There is no loss of 1st Amendment rights just because I might not know where it comes from or it is untrue. If I was knowingly conspiring with Russian officials to do things to disrupt an election or acting as an unregistered lobbyist, different matter. But barring very limited cases I can retweet whatever I want.

In the eyes of the law, being a knowing or unknowing participant in foreign disinformation is immaterial. I guess my question is, why do you think it is ok to amplify foreing disinformation at the peril to the safety and security of the United States of America?

because our founders and subsequent courts have wisely put into place strong and politicking neutral protections for speech as a core aspect of our constitutional democracy. smearing speech you don’t like as “foreign” or a “threat to national security” is a very common way to try to silence people you don’t like. there are tools to pursue the foreign actors directly for that conduct but our laws protect even mistaken or “harmful” speech.

The 1A gives the right to "smear" your speech as foreign and call it a threat to national security. Sure, you have the right to lie. Others have the right to call you out on it. That's how the 1A works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

that’s … not true at all. they can go after foreign spies but the actual ideas are protected.

The Tweets are literally created by fake accounts controlled by foreign governments. Those accounts are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

And as you well know, that scenario is a tiny slice of the “misinformation” that DHS would be trying to control. People have raised multiple examples in this thread of “misinformation” that was just an alternative viewpoint that was supressed during covid.

And yet people are re-tweeting foreign government bot accounts. Don't get mad when the foreign controlled accounts get shutdown and dismantled for peddling lies.

"I HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIE, DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES." *huff*puff*

I mean - that is pretty basic 1A stuff. Assuming no defamation or fraud or narrowly tailored statute, I have the right to lie.

National security is a pretty big area of exceptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

Excellent point.

Totally false and mistaken point. I can spend all day writing in support of offical Chinese and Russian viewpoints and the Constitution protects me.

You can but China and Russia are not protected. You retweeting/reposting is not your speech. You didn’t author it.

Yes it is my speech. It literally is. There is no loss of 1st Amendment rights just because I might not know where it comes from or it is untrue. If I was knowingly conspiring with Russian officials to do things to disrupt an election or acting as an unregistered lobbyist, different matter. But barring very limited cases I can retweet whatever I want.

In the eyes of the law, being a knowing or unknowing participant in foreign disinformation is immaterial. I guess my question is, why do you think it is ok to amplify foreing disinformation at the peril to the safety and security of the United States of America?

because our founders and subsequent courts have wisely put into place strong and politicking neutral protections for speech as a core aspect of our constitutional democracy. smearing speech you don’t like as “foreign” or a “threat to national security” is a very common way to try to silence people you don’t like. there are tools to pursue the foreign actors directly for that conduct but our laws protect even mistaken or “harmful” speech.

Jeez, Orwell couldn't create a bigger stooge in his books even if he tried. The truth is stranger than fiction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

that’s … not true at all. they can go after foreign spies but the actual ideas are protected.

The Tweets are literally created by fake accounts controlled by foreign governments. Those accounts are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

And as you well know, that scenario is a tiny slice of the “misinformation” that DHS would be trying to control. People have raised multiple examples in this thread of “misinformation” that was just an alternative viewpoint that was supressed during covid.

And yet people are re-tweeting foreign government bot accounts. Don't get mad when the foreign controlled accounts get shutdown and dismantled for peddling lies.

"I HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIE, DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES." *huff*puff*

I mean - that is pretty basic 1A stuff. Assuming no defamation or fraud or narrowly tailored statute, I have the right to lie.

Yes, you do but you need to come up with your own lies instead of being used by a foreign government. Can’t believe what a tool you are. And not an original thought in your brain.

I think it’s much more tooly to hand over control of political speech (the very speech that is most crucial to protect!) to some random DHS set of GS-13s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

Excellent point.

Totally false and mistaken point. I can spend all day writing in support of offical Chinese and Russian viewpoints and the Constitution protects me.

You can but China and Russia are not protected. You retweeting/reposting is not your speech. You didn’t author it.

Yes it is my speech. It literally is. There is no loss of 1st Amendment rights just because I might not know where it comes from or it is untrue. If I was knowingly conspiring with Russian officials to do things to disrupt an election or acting as an unregistered lobbyist, different matter. But barring very limited cases I can retweet whatever I want.

In the eyes of the law, being a knowing or unknowing participant in foreign disinformation is immaterial. I guess my question is, why do you think it is ok to amplify foreing disinformation at the peril to the safety and security of the United States of America?

because our founders and subsequent courts have wisely put into place strong and politicking neutral protections for speech as a core aspect of our constitutional democracy. smearing speech you don’t like as “foreign” or a “threat to national security” is a very common way to try to silence people you don’t like. there are tools to pursue the foreign actors directly for that conduct but our laws protect even mistaken or “harmful” speech.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

Excellent point.

Totally false and mistaken point. I can spend all day writing in support of offical Chinese and Russian viewpoints and the Constitution protects me.

You can but China and Russia are not protected. You retweeting/reposting is not your speech. You didn’t author it.

Yes it is my speech. It literally is. There is no loss of 1st Amendment rights just because I might not know where it comes from or it is untrue. If I was knowingly conspiring with Russian officials to do things to disrupt an election or acting as an unregistered lobbyist, different matter. But barring very limited cases I can retweet whatever I want.

In the eyes of the law, being a knowing or unknowing participant in foreign disinformation is immaterial. I guess my question is, why do you think it is ok to amplify foreing disinformation at the peril to the safety and security of the United States of America?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

that’s … not true at all. they can go after foreign spies but the actual ideas are protected.

The Tweets are literally created by fake accounts controlled by foreign governments. Those accounts are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

And as you well know, that scenario is a tiny slice of the “misinformation” that DHS would be trying to control. People have raised multiple examples in this thread of “misinformation” that was just an alternative viewpoint that was supressed during covid.

And yet people are re-tweeting foreign government bot accounts. Don't get mad when the foreign controlled accounts get shutdown and dismantled for peddling lies.

"I HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIE, DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES." *huff*puff*

I mean - that is pretty basic 1A stuff. Assuming no defamation or fraud or narrowly tailored statute, I have the right to lie.

Yes, you do but you need to come up with your own lies instead of being used by a foreign government. Can’t believe what a tool you are. And not an original thought in your brain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

that’s … not true at all. they can go after foreign spies but the actual ideas are protected.

The Tweets are literally created by fake accounts controlled by foreign governments. Those accounts are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

And as you well know, that scenario is a tiny slice of the “misinformation” that DHS would be trying to control. People have raised multiple examples in this thread of “misinformation” that was just an alternative viewpoint that was supressed during covid.

And yet people are re-tweeting foreign government bot accounts. Don't get mad when the foreign controlled accounts get shutdown and dismantled for peddling lies.

"I HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIE, DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES." *huff*puff*

I mean - that is pretty basic 1A stuff. Assuming no defamation or fraud or narrowly tailored statute, I have the right to lie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

Excellent point.

Totally false and mistaken point. I can spend all day writing in support of offical Chinese and Russian viewpoints and the Constitution protects me.

You can but China and Russia are not protected. You retweeting/reposting is not your speech. You didn’t author it.

Yes it is my speech. It literally is. There is no loss of 1st Amendment rights just because I might not know where it comes from or it is untrue. If I was knowingly conspiring with Russian officials to do things to disrupt an election or acting as an unregistered lobbyist, different matter. But barring very limited cases I can retweet whatever I want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

that’s … not true at all. they can go after foreign spies but the actual ideas are protected.

The Tweets are literally created by fake accounts controlled by foreign governments. Those accounts are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

And as you well know, that scenario is a tiny slice of the “misinformation” that DHS would be trying to control. People have raised multiple examples in this thread of “misinformation” that was just an alternative viewpoint that was supressed during covid.

And yet people are re-tweeting foreign government bot accounts. Don't get mad when the foreign controlled accounts get shutdown and dismantled for peddling lies.

"I HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIE, DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES." *huff*puff*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

Excellent point.

Totally false and mistaken point. I can spend all day writing in support of offical Chinese and Russian viewpoints and the Constitution protects me.

You can but China and Russia are not protected. You retweeting/reposting is not your speech. You didn’t author it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between disinformation and verifiable lies? Have they defined the scope of disinformation?

And who determines what’s disinformation?

That is a good question. This is only a good idea if it’s still good to have when another party is in charge.

They’re target foreign misinformation. If it comes from Russia or China, it’s not protected.

that’s … not true at all. they can go after foreign spies but the actual ideas are protected.

The Tweets are literally created by fake accounts controlled by foreign governments. Those accounts are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

And as you well know, that scenario is a tiny slice of the “misinformation” that DHS would be trying to control. People have raised multiple examples in this thread of “misinformation” that was just an alternative viewpoint that was supressed during covid.