Apparently, I can't help you. Marty wanted to know what "censorship" Trump was fighting. You asked the previous poster to limit his expression to censorship. I gave you several examples of government overreach with regards to censorship. Instead of addressing it, you want to move the goal posts. If you have a problem with my post, pick a point and address it. If not, acquiesce.

Once you acknowledge that there is censorship, we will move onto your next point. Until then, I'm not chasing rabbits.

 

You do realize that Trump is soon to be the government. Are you suggesting he will have no business in correcting information put out there against him?

The government has every right to correct incorrect information. That is not the same as suppressing it. To say the government must stay silent in the face of incorrect information is absurd.

The opposite is also true . If Trump lies, rephrase, when Trump lies , the media has the right to put the facts our there. 


I’m somewhat surprised that you would support such an authoritarian anti-American proposal.

In the video Trump is very clear what the policy is. Both Trump and Vance have been railing about fact checkers because they make it more difficult for Trump and his supporters to lie and con the American people. He wants to be able to spread totally unchecked misinformation.

In the video he states that he plans to do everything under his power to prevent Federal employees from outing his and his supporters lies and silencing any media that does not support his state propaganda.

In the video he makes the twisted claim that this somehow promotes free speech.

Trump’s plan is the cornerstone of any authoritarian government. He’s just borrowing from the playbook of Putin, Orban, Xi, etc.

Everyone should listen to this sick video and hopefully recognize it for what it is. I wouldn't hold my breath though....

I find it interesting that you are accusing Trump of MAYBE doing something in the future.  Something the Democratic party has been doing the last 4 years. Once again...

Why are you being so obtuse? Is it intentional? Andy Dufrane Shawhank redemption.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Nope.

I should be grandfathered in since I had Elon as an avi before he even entered the political arena..

But I have no problem changing if need be.

That’s Elon? I thought that was Wayne Newton!

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I should be grandfathered in since I had Elon as an avi before he even entered the political arena..

But I have no problem changing if need be.

That’s Elon? I thought that was Wayne Newton!

(Mouthing words)

"Wayne.. Newton"

---

Apparently, I can't help you. Marty wanted to know what "censorship" Trump was fighting. You asked the previous poster to limit his expression to censorship. I gave you several examples of government overreach with regards to censorship. Instead of addressing it, you want to move the goal posts. If you have a problem with my post, pick a point and address it. If not, acquiesce.

Once you acknowledge that there is censorship, we will move onto your next point. Until then, I'm not chasing rabbits.

 

You do realize that Trump is soon to be the government. Are you suggesting he will have no business in correcting information put out there against him?

The government has every right to correct incorrect information. That is not the same as suppressing it. To say the government must stay silent in the face of incorrect information is absurd.

The opposite is also true . If Trump lies, rephrase, when Trump lies , the media has the right to put the facts our there. 


I’m somewhat surprised that you would support such an authoritarian anti-American proposal.

In the video Trump is very clear what the policy is. Both Trump and Vance have been railing about fact checkers because they make it more difficult for Trump and his supporters to lie and con the American people. He wants to be able to spread totally unchecked misinformation.

In the video he states that he plans to do everything under his power to prevent Federal employees from outing his and his supporters lies and silencing any media that does not support his state propaganda.

In the video he makes the twisted claim that this somehow promotes free speech.

Trump’s plan is the cornerstone of any authoritarian government. He’s just borrowing from the playbook of Putin, Orban, Xi, etc.

Everyone should listen to this sick video and hopefully recognize it for what it is. I wouldn't hold my breath though....

I'm happy to chase your thoughts around, but not before moving on from the last discussion. Are the examples I provided sufficient proof that the GOVERNMENT is working to suppress American citizens. If not, why?

---

 

You do realize that Trump is soon to be the government. Are you suggesting he will have no business in correcting information put out there against him?

The government has every right to correct incorrect information. That is not the same as suppressing it. To say the government must stay silent in the face of incorrect information is absurd.

The opposite is also true . If Trump lies, rephrase, when Trump lies , the media has the right to put the facts our there. 


I’m somewhat surprised that you would support such an authoritarian anti-American proposal.

In the video Trump is very clear what the policy is. Both Trump and Vance have been railing about fact checkers because they make it more difficult for Trump and his supporters to lie and con the American people. He wants to be able to spread totally unchecked misinformation.

In the video he states that he plans to do everything under his power to prevent Federal employees from outing his and his supporters lies and silencing any media that does not support his state propaganda.

In the video he makes the twisted claim that this somehow promotes free speech.

Trump’s plan is the cornerstone of any authoritarian government. He’s just borrowing from the playbook of Putin, Orban, Xi, etc.

Everyone should listen to this sick video and hopefully recognize it for what it is. I wouldn't hold my breath though....

I'm happy to chase your thoughts around, but not before moving on from the last discussion. Are the examples I provided sufficient proof that the GOVERNMENT is working to suppress American citizens. If not, why?

What evidence do you have that these stories were censured? This tiresome [BLEEP] about Hunter Biden and Burisma was discussed non-stop by Fox Noise and other right wing media during the past 4 years.

This is a bunch of whining about nothing....as always from MAGA cry babies.

---

• Hunter Biden Laptop Story - The most obvious. Social media platforms blocked the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, citing disinformation concerns. Later, the story was verified as authentic. The suppression seemed driven by FBI warnings about Russian disinformation, which raised concerns that the government censored legitimate news for political reasons.
  
  
• Disinformation Governance Board - Remember this gem? DHS created a Disinformation Governance Board to monitor online misinformation. The board was quickly shelved after backlash, with critics fearing it could be used to suppress political speech. The attempt raised concerns about government control over public discourse.
  
  
• CISA's Rumor Control - Here's one most of us didn't know about. CISA launched Rumor Control to debunk election-related misinformation, but it also flagged legitimate concerns, like the lab-leak theory. While some disinformation was harmful, this initiative may have stifled valid public discussion and emerging facts, especially as the lab-leak theory later gained traction.
  
  
• COVID-19 Misinformation - I could write a book on this one, but I'll just hit the basics. The government pressured social media platforms to remove COVID-19 content that contradicted official guidance. While I will concede some content was indeed false, discussions about vaccine safety and the virus's origins were censored. Additionally, the government attempted to stifle important debates that later turned out to be valid.
  
  
• FBI Social Media Monitoring - The FBI worked with tech companies to flag posts about election fraud, but many of these claims, though disproven, were stifled without public discussion. That's the important part. The censorship prevented a broader debate about potential flaws in the election process, even if the claims were ultimately unsubstantiated.
  
  
• Russian Disinformation Claims - Russia. Russia. Russia. The government pressured social media platforms to remove content tied to Russian interference. While Russian efforts were confirmed, some flagged accounts were legitimate political discourse. Over-censorship in this case may have suppressed valid political speech. It also turns out that most of this nonsense originated from the Clinton camp. Shocker.
  
  
• National Response Framework for Disinformation - More government control of speech. The government’s National Response Framework coordinated efforts to remove disinformation online. While it aimed to limit harmful content, it also raised fears about silencing dissenting views or stifling important debates by labeling them as false or harmful.
  
  
• Social Media and Extremism- The FBI and DHS monitored and removed extremist content from social media. While intended to combat violent extremism, some non-violent political speech was labeled as “extreme,” leading to concerns that legitimate political dialogue was being suppressed. Additionally, the Twitter Files revealed internal communications showing how Twitter worked with government agencies, including the FBI and DHS, to censor content related to the 2020 election, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and COVID-19. These documents showed how government pressure, both direct and indirect, influenced Twitter’s content moderation, raising concerns about free speech and the level of government involvement in shaping online narratives.
  

Critics feared, may have stifled, may have suppressed, raising concerns…yes perhaps.

Was it all necessary? No. Was it only positive? No. Was it more positive than negative? Certainly, especially when it came to Covid 19.

You write “While I will concede some content was indeed false, discussions about vaccine safety and the virus’s origins were censored. Well thank God discussions on vaccine safety were censored! Keeping the anti-vaxer nut jobs at bay saved untold thousands of lives!

There are well established limits on free speech. For example, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. The anti-vaxers who convinced people not to get vaccinated killed far, far more people than yelling fire in a crowded theatre ever could.

In Canada:

Unvaccinated 11 to 17 times more likely to die

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/seve...-canadians

---

• Hunter Biden Laptop Story - The most obvious. Social media platforms blocked the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, citing disinformation concerns. Later, the story was verified as authentic. The suppression seemed driven by FBI warnings about Russian disinformation, which raised concerns that the government censored legitimate news for political reasons.
  
  
• Disinformation Governance Board - Remember this gem? DHS created a Disinformation Governance Board to monitor online misinformation. The board was quickly shelved after backlash, with critics fearing it could be used to suppress political speech. The attempt raised concerns about government control over public discourse.
  
  
• CISA's Rumor Control - Here's one most of us didn't know about. CISA launched Rumor Control to debunk election-related misinformation, but it also flagged legitimate concerns, like the lab-leak theory. While some disinformation was harmful, this initiative may have stifled valid public discussion and emerging facts, especially as the lab-leak theory later gained traction.
  
  
• COVID-19 Misinformation - I could write a book on this one, but I'll just hit the basics. The government pressured social media platforms to remove COVID-19 content that contradicted official guidance. While I will concede some content was indeed false, discussions about vaccine safety and the virus's origins were censored. Additionally, the government attempted to stifle important debates that later turned out to be valid.
  
  
• FBI Social Media Monitoring - The FBI worked with tech companies to flag posts about election fraud, but many of these claims, though disproven, were stifled without public discussion. That's the important part. The censorship prevented a broader debate about potential flaws in the election process, even if the claims were ultimately unsubstantiated.
  
  
• Russian Disinformation Claims - Russia. Russia. Russia. The government pressured social media platforms to remove content tied to Russian interference. While Russian efforts were confirmed, some flagged accounts were legitimate political discourse. Over-censorship in this case may have suppressed valid political speech. It also turns out that most of this nonsense originated from the Clinton camp. Shocker.
  
  
• National Response Framework for Disinformation - More government control of speech. The government’s National Response Framework coordinated efforts to remove disinformation online. While it aimed to limit harmful content, it also raised fears about silencing dissenting views or stifling important debates by labeling them as false or harmful.
  
  
• Social Media and Extremism- The FBI and DHS monitored and removed extremist content from social media. While intended to combat violent extremism, some non-violent political speech was labeled as “extreme,” leading to concerns that legitimate political dialogue was being suppressed. Additionally, the Twitter Files revealed internal communications showing how Twitter worked with government agencies, including the FBI and DHS, to censor content related to the 2020 election, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and COVID-19. These documents showed how government pressure, both direct and indirect, influenced Twitter’s content moderation, raising concerns about free speech and the level of government involvement in shaping online narratives.
  

Critics feared, may have stifled, may have suppressed, raising concerns…yes perhaps.

Was it all necessary? No. Was it only positive? No. Was it more positive than negative? Certainly, especially when it came to Covid 19.

You write “While I will concede some content was indeed false, discussions about vaccine safety and the virus’s origins were censored. Well thank God discussions on vaccine safety were censored! Keeping the anti-vaxer nut jobs at bay saved untold thousands of lives!

There are well established limits on free speech. For example, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. The anti-vaxers who convinced people not to get vaccinated killed far, far more people than yelling fire in a crowded theatre ever could.

In Canada:

Unvaccinated 11 to 17 times more likely to die

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/seve...-canadians

Do you want to turn this into a Covid thread? 

You said they didn't censor. I just gave you a few quick examples, so that we can at least put to bed the idea that Trump is chasing "ghosts," as it was mentioned previously. There have been several attempts made by the government recently to censor American's free speech, using companies as proxies. There are literal departments being made to act as liaisons between the government and media companies. We have testimony from Big Tech execs verifying the government's role in pushing for speech control. To argue the government is not attempting to stifle free speech is just unfounded.

If you want to focus on the crowded theater aspect or the degree to which speech should be regulated, fine, but we are now discussing when and where to curtail speech. This moves into an ideological arena, not a factual one. In this area, you and I will have different OPINIONS. There is no "fact" when we enter into that discussion, merely different priors and applied logic. 

Do we agree this is where we are in the conversation?

---

Critics feared, may have stifled, may have suppressed, raising concerns…yes perhaps.

Was it all necessary? No. Was it only positive? No. Was it more positive than negative? Certainly, especially when it came to Covid 19.

You write “While I will concede some content was indeed false, discussions about vaccine safety and the virus’s origins were censored. Well thank God discussions on vaccine safety were censored! Keeping the anti-vaxer nut jobs at bay saved untold thousands of lives!

There are well established limits on free speech. For example, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. The anti-vaxers who convinced people not to get vaccinated killed far, far more people than yelling fire in a crowded theatre ever could.

In Canada:

Unvaccinated 11 to 17 times more likely to die

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/seve...-canadians

Do you want to turn this into a Covid thread? 

You said they didn't censor. I just gave you a few quick examples, so that we can at least put to bed the idea that Trump is chasing "ghosts," as it was mentioned previously. There have been several attempts made by the government recently to censor American's free speech, using companies as proxies. There are literal departments being made to act as liaisons between the government and media companies. We have testimony from Big Tech execs verifying the government's role in pushing for speech control. To argue the government is not attempting to stifle free speech is just unfounded.

If you want to focus on the crowded theater aspect or the degree to which speech should be regulated, fine, but we are now discussing when and where to curtail speech. This moves into an ideological arena, not a factual one. In this area, you and I will have different OPINIONS. There is no "fact" when we enter into that discussion, merely different priors and applied logic. 

Do we agree this is where we are in the conversation?

Didn’t Zuckerberg apologize for letting himself be used to sensor free speech?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Critics feared, may have stifled, may have suppressed, raising concerns…yes perhaps.

Was it all necessary? No. Was it only positive? No. Was it more positive than negative? Certainly, especially when it came to Covid 19.

You write “While I will concede some content was indeed false, discussions about vaccine safety and the virus’s origins were censored. Well thank God discussions on vaccine safety were censored! Keeping the anti-vaxer nut jobs at bay saved untold thousands of lives!

There are well established limits on free speech. For example, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. The anti-vaxers who convinced people not to get vaccinated killed far, far more people than yelling fire in a crowded theatre ever could.

In Canada:

Unvaccinated 11 to 17 times more likely to die

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/seve...-canadians

Do you want to turn this into a Covid thread? 

You said they didn't censor. I just gave you a few quick examples, so that we can at least put to bed the idea that Trump is chasing "ghosts," as it was mentioned previously. There have been several attempts made by the government recently to censor American's free speech, using companies as proxies. There are literal departments being made to act as liaisons between the government and media companies. We have testimony from Big Tech execs verifying the government's role in pushing for speech control. To argue the government is not attempting to stifle free speech is just unfounded.

If you want to focus on the crowded theater aspect or the degree to which speech should be regulated, fine, but we are now discussing when and where to curtail speech. This moves into an ideological arena, not a factual one. In this area, you and I will have different OPINIONS. There is no "fact" when we enter into that discussion, merely different priors and applied logic. 

Do we agree this is where we are in the conversation?

1. You mentioned Covid. I responded.


2. These alleged attempts were not free speech censorship. The concern was about content on private companies sites, not about those companies speech. What Americans were censored? Are we being censored on this site because of the rules of this site?

3. Early on in Trump's rant he talks about banning government officials from categorizing information as being true or false. Do you think that a news or other organization should not be able to make such an inquiry from the government?

---

They weren't alleged attempts. Just because I used tempered language does not mean they didn't exist.

As to the question of the media, why does the media need to take orders from the government? That's not how it's supposed to work.

---

They weren't alleged attempts. Just because I used tempered language does not mean they didn't exist.

As to the question of the media, why does the media need to take orders from the government? That's not how it's supposed to work.

"That's not how it works"....nor should it be this way in the normal course of things.

But during an incredibly-dangerous worldwide pandemic, before the widespread availability of a vaccine, tempering the spread of false information about what is going on and what to do/what not to do can be seen as a public health measure. One that should be used sparingly.

---