I always ignored the guy because he’s nothing more than a yapping loon. Then he crossed this line and I wished bad fortune upon him. Thankfully it’s happening.

(pointing around the room) Don’t mess with homebiscuit.

I won’t mess with you, but if I ever feel I’m in the same restaurant as you, I’m most definitely eating my food with my fork upside down.  Mainly just to get a rise out of you. No matter how awkward it is for me.  And I respect you.  So don’t take it the wrong way.

---

Disinformation negates all of these points you are attempting to make. 

Disinformation is falsehood willingly spread with the intent to deceive. It is much worse than, and not to be confused with misinformation. It is much more akin to propaganda. 

Why does willful deception ever deserve a platform anywhere? 
It's not about whether he's "silly" or someone "not believing in him" - he willfully spread lies with intent to deceive and he did it for personal gain and political interest. This isn't a case of silencing the voice of someone with a different view. It's punishing a lying idiot intent on doing harm to others to advance his own agenda.

who decides whats misinformation?
who decides how far off you have to be to be punished?

Maybe the people who told him this incorrect info had told him good info before.  maybe he really believed his source.
Can you 100% tell me he didn't really believe the info?  its not illegal to be stupid.

again, im not against the law suit.  im against the silencing.

There’s two sides.  Right and wrong. Not left and right.  It’s up to you to decide where you belong.  Just dont confuse the two.

---

who decides whats misinformation?
who decides how far off you have to be to be punished?

Maybe the people who told him this incorrect info had told him good info before.  maybe he really believed his source.
Can you 100% tell me he didn't really believe the info?  its not illegal to be stupid.

again, im not against the law suit.  im against the silencing.

Apparently 4 separate courts of law are "who decides." 
And they have decided in favor of those Jones defamed with his disinformation. 

Continually broadcasting easily verified lies doesn't make one "stupid." It makes one responsible for the legal consequence of those actions. 

There is no requirement to prove he believed anything.

Who's arguing the decision? Some of us are saying he shouldn't be deplatformed, but should be financially punished, which he was. That's why we have the courts. We don't need twitter and youtube deciding who has a voice.

---

Apparently 4 separate courts of law are "who decides." 
And they have decided in favor of those Jones defamed with his disinformation. 

Continually broadcasting easily verified lies doesn't make one "stupid." It makes one responsible for the legal consequence of those actions. 

There is no requirement to prove he believed anything.

Who's arguing the decision? Some of us are saying he shouldn't be deplatformed, but should be financially punished, which he was. That's why we have the courts. We don't need twitter and youtube deciding who has a voice.

Maybe "we" don't need YouTube and Twitter to deplatform people, but, I don't think the government can or should force them to keep people "platformed" if they don't want to

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Yeah, but you're naive.

---

Apparently 4 separate courts of law are "who decides." 
And they have decided in favor of those Jones defamed with his disinformation. 

Continually broadcasting easily verified lies doesn't make one "stupid." It makes one responsible for the legal consequence of those actions. 

There is no requirement to prove he believed anything.

Who's arguing the decision?

Some of us are saying he shouldn't be deplatformed, but should be financially punished, which he was. That's why we have the courts. We don't need twitter and youtube deciding who has a voice.

The user I responded to questioned the entitlement of such decision making. I answered. You are contorting the intent. I never implied an argument of the decision. I answered the question asked about it. 

We don't "need" a lot of things. 

Private companies deciding to remove access to users spreading blatant falsehoods repeatedly are well within their rights to do so. And they are also free to make those decisions on a case by case basis. 

You're free to seek alternatives twitter, YouTube or any other platform you feel utilizes undue censorship.

---

No [BLEEP], really? This whole time, there have been successful alternatives to the few social media companies that literally require a monopoly to function, and I didn't know about it? Please, point me in that direction. Oh that's right, those other companies don't exist. Because they can't exist without knocking their competitor completely out of the market. Dems love the free market when they can use it to further entrench their own power.

Norman is saying we don't know if Alex was intentionally spreading disinformation. He might literally just be a [BLEEP]. It didn't make it any less egregious or harmful to the abused party, which is why he just lost that lawsuit. If he continues with it, it will affect his pocketbook. CNN committed disinformation against Sandmann. Should they be taken off the air?

---

No [BLEEP], really? This whole time, there have been successful alternatives to the few social media companies that literally require a monopoly to function, and I didn't know about it? Please, point me in that direction. Oh that's right, those other companies don't exist. Because they can't exist without knocking their competitor completely out of the market. Dems love the free market when they can use it to further entrench their own power.

Norman is saying we don't know if Alex was intentionally spreading disinformation. He might literally just be a [BLEEP]. It didn't make it any less egregious or harmful to the abused party, which is why he just lost that lawsuit. If he continues with it, it will affect his pocketbook. CNN committed disinformation against Sandmann. Should they be taken off the air?

LOL

[BLEEP] off with this 

Yes we do

---

Look dude, I am not here to support Alex Jones. The dude is a conspiracy theorist entertainer who, unfortunately is right enough for his words to carry weight. When our government and media are transparent and honest, it significantly reduces that type of influencer. This stuff has been around forever,. They literally had tabloids at every checkout counter at every supermarket, and when they went too far, they got sued. Most people didn't buy into it, because our government and media weren't constantly peddling misinformation and disinformation.

I notice you didn't answer the question of whether or not CNN should be banned. We know they constantly are putting out information that is false. They lost lawsuits in courts over intentional misrepresentation. Do you know for a FACT they intentionally slandered Sandmann? Or did some of the idiots that produce that stuff genuinely believe the dude was a racist. I bet you still think he's a racist.

You're so eager to censor stuff that supports your point of view. It sucks for the victims of Sandy Hook, but it sucks for us when we have people deciding what we see and hear. And if you don't think that gets influenced by our government and corporations, you're a rube. When our institutions clean up their act, people like Alex Jones will mostly go away. Unfortunately, there are too many people that want to treat the symptoms, not the illness. Hey, whatever's profitable.

---

Look dude, I am not here to support Alex Jones. The dude is a conspiracy theorist entertainer who, unfortunately is right enough for his words to carry weight. When our government and media are transparent and honest, it significantly reduces that type of influencer. This stuff has been around forever,. They literally had tabloids at every checkout counter at every supermarket, and when they went too far, they got sued. Most people didn't buy into it, because our government and media weren't constantly peddling misinformation and disinformation.

I notice you didn't answer the question of whether or not CNN should be banned. We know they constantly are putting out information that is false. They lost lawsuits in courts over intentional misrepresentation. Do you know for a FACT they intentionally slandered Sandmann? Or did some of the idiots that produce that stuff genuinely believe the dude was a racist. I bet you still think he's a racist.

You're so eager to censor stuff that supports your point of view. It sucks for the victims of Sandy Hook, but it sucks for us when we have people deciding what we see and hear. And if you don't think that gets influenced by our government and corporations, you're a rube. When our institutions clean up their act, people like Alex Jones will mostly go away. Unfortunately, there are too many people that want to treat the symptoms, not the illness. Hey, whatever's profitable.

Herp-DERP

1. Nothing that idiot says carries weight - he takes advantage of the feeble minded and consequences be damned

2.Leave it in the tabloids - at least a greater % of Americans knew that stuff was garbage - now we have a divided and dumbed down society eager to adopt anything that remotely resonates with their point of view and giving voice to it digitally makes it dangerous

3. You could make arguments for censoring a half dozen biased news outlets - CNN may be one of them - none of them are nearly as careless as Jones was in the case this thread is actually about

4. Don't tell me what I'm eager for, you presumptive wind bag, and please proof that sentence again.
Why would I want to censor stuff that SUPPORTS my point of view?  You are not only wrong about what I'm supposedly eager about, you can't express it. 

Here's a clue: The point was about censoring harmful disinformation. You've trodden off into some other horse [BLEEP] that wasn't the point.

---

Look dude, I am not here to support Alex Jones. The dude is a conspiracy theorist entertainer who, unfortunately is right enough for his words to carry weight. When our government and media are transparent and honest, it significantly reduces that type of influencer. This stuff has been around forever,. They literally had tabloids at every checkout counter at every supermarket, and when they went too far, they got sued. Most people didn't buy into it, because our government and media weren't constantly peddling misinformation and disinformation.

I notice you didn't answer the question of whether or not CNN should be banned. We know they constantly are putting out information that is false. They lost lawsuits in courts over intentional misrepresentation. Do you know for a FACT they intentionally slandered Sandmann? Or did some of the idiots that produce that stuff genuinely believe the dude was a racist. I bet you still think he's a racist.

You're so eager to censor stuff that supports your point of view. It sucks for the victims of Sandy Hook, but it sucks for us when we have people deciding what we see and hear. And if you don't think that gets influenced by our government and corporations, you're a rube. When our institutions clean up their act, people like Alex Jones will mostly go away. Unfortunately, there are too many people that want to treat the symptoms, not the illness. Hey, whatever's profitable.

Herp-DERP

1. Nothing that idiot says carries weight - he takes advantage of the feeble minded and consequences be damned

2.Leave it in the tabloids - at least a greater % of Americans knew that stuff was garbage - now we have a divided and dumbed down society eager to adopt anything that remotely resonates with their point of view and giving voice to it digitally makes it dangerous

3. You could make arguments for censoring a half dozen biased news outlets - CNN may be one of them - none of them are nearly as careless as Jones was in the case this thread is actually about

4. Don't tell me what I'm eager for, you presumptive wind bag, and please proof that sentence again.
Why would I want to censor stuff that SUPPORTS my point of view?  You are not only wrong about what I'm supposedly eager about, you can't express it. 

Here's a clue: The point was about censoring harmful disinformation. You've trodden off into some other horse [BLEEP] that wasn't the point.

hahahahahaha

Presumptive Wind Bag! I'm stealing that.

---

Look dude, I am not here to support Alex Jones. The dude is a conspiracy theorist entertainer who, unfortunately is right enough for his words to carry weight. When our government and media are transparent and honest, it significantly reduces that type of influencer. This stuff has been around forever,. They literally had tabloids at every checkout counter at every supermarket, and when they went too far, they got sued. Most people didn't buy into it, because our government and media weren't constantly peddling misinformation and disinformation.

I notice you didn't answer the question of whether or not CNN should be banned. We know they constantly are putting out information that is false. They lost lawsuits in courts over intentional misrepresentation. Do you know for a FACT they intentionally slandered Sandmann? Or did some of the idiots that produce that stuff genuinely believe the dude was a racist. I bet you still think he's a racist.

You're so eager to censor stuff that supports your point of view. It sucks for the victims of Sandy Hook, but it sucks for us when we have people deciding what we see and hear. And if you don't think that gets influenced by our government and corporations, you're a rube. When our institutions clean up their act, people like Alex Jones will mostly go away. Unfortunately, there are too many people that want to treat the symptoms, not the illness. Hey, whatever's profitable.

Herp-DERP

1. Nothing that idiot says carries weight - he takes advantage of the feeble minded and consequences be damned

2.Leave it in the tabloids - at least a greater % of Americans knew that stuff was garbage - now we have a divided and dumbed down society eager to adopt anything that remotely resonates with their point of view and giving voice to it digitally makes it dangerous

3. You could make arguments for censoring a half dozen biased news outlets - CNN may be one of them - none of them are nearly as careless as Jones was in the case this thread is actually about

4. Don't tell me what I'm eager for, you presumptive wind bag, and please proof that sentence again.
Why would I want to censor stuff that SUPPORTS my point of view?  You are not only wrong about what I'm supposedly eager about, you can't express it. 

Here's a clue: The point was about censoring harmful disinformation. You've trodden off into some other horse [BLEEP] that wasn't the point.

Your vitriol is the primary driver behind your content, not anything substantive. You have become quite adept at picking up the things you can correct, like typos, while avoiding engaging in any real dialogue. You're smart enough to notice the proofing error, but not genuine enough to address the crux of the argument. Talk about some herp-derp. 

We all know what your point was. Norman addressed it when he asked who gets to decide what's harmful disinformation, and, more importantly, who gets to decide who is censored by it, which is the big concern. You say the courts decide, like that's satisfactory. It's not. They are there to award punitive damages when someone speaks in a way that is harmful to others. They did their job. No one here cares that Alex Jones got financially damaged for spouting off [BLEEP]. 

However, there are several of us that don't want to encourage the process of silencing bad speech because we believe that it's a first principle of Democracy. You remove it, and you remove one of the pillars of liberalism. Your type of thinking will lead to abuse by those in power. It already has. You hide behind the free market on this issue, but is that a cause you really care about? You really think companies should be allowed this kind of discretion? 

MY point was that people like you, who want to silence all the "bad" people, are addressing the symptom, not the disease. The problem is really the failings of our institutions to work for the people, being honest and accountable. If we focus on fixing that, the Alex Jones' of the world lose most of their following. Why don't you point your vitriol towards the establishment that's [BLEEP] everyone over? Alex Jones is small potatoes. 

For all your arrogance, you sure are short-sighted. But hey, maybe you can find some editing mistakes in this post, so you don't have to think about anything. Please present your findings to the forum as proof of your superior intelligence.

---

Look dude, I am not here to support Alex Jones. The dude is a conspiracy theorist entertainer who, unfortunately is right enough for his words to carry weight. When our government and media are transparent and honest, it significantly reduces that type of influencer. This stuff has been around forever,. They literally had tabloids at every checkout counter at every supermarket, and when they went too far, they got sued. Most people didn't buy into it, because our government and media weren't constantly peddling misinformation and disinformation.

I notice you didn't answer the question of whether or not CNN should be banned. We know they constantly are putting out information that is false. They lost lawsuits in courts over intentional misrepresentation. Do you know for a FACT they intentionally slandered Sandmann? Or did some of the idiots that produce that stuff genuinely believe the dude was a racist. I bet you still think he's a racist.

You're so eager to censor stuff that supports your point of view. It sucks for the victims of Sandy Hook, but it sucks for us when we have people deciding what we see and hear. And if you don't think that gets influenced by our government and corporations, you're a rube. When our institutions clean up their act, people like Alex Jones will mostly go away. Unfortunately, there are too many people that want to treat the symptoms, not the illness. Hey, whatever's profitable.

Herp-DERP

1. Nothing that idiot says carries weight - he takes advantage of the feeble minded and consequences be damned

2.Leave it in the tabloids - at least a greater % of Americans knew that stuff was garbage - now we have a divided and dumbed down society eager to adopt anything that remotely resonates with their point of view and giving voice to it digitally makes it dangerous

3. You could make arguments for censoring a half dozen biased news outlets - CNN may be one of them - none of them are nearly as careless as Jones was in the case this thread is actually about

4. Don't tell me what I'm eager for, you presumptive wind bag, and please proof that sentence again.
Why would I want to censor stuff that SUPPORTS my point of view?  You are not only wrong about what I'm supposedly eager about, you can't express it. 

Here's a clue: The point was about censoring harmful disinformation. You've trodden off into some other horse [BLEEP] that wasn't the point.

Credibility shot.

The problem with people like you is that you genuinely believe you're smarter than everyone else and therefore have the DUTY (in your head) to help those feeble-minded lessers.

It's exactly why the left are racists. They see other colors as 'less than' so they need YOUR help. The Great White Crusader, helping the downtrodden.

The government has routinely engaged in disinformation for the last 100 years... but you only have a problem when citizens do it?

---

Herp-DERP

1. Nothing that idiot says carries weight - he takes advantage of the feeble minded and consequences be damned

2.Leave it in the tabloids - at least a greater % of Americans knew that stuff was garbage - now we have a divided and dumbed down society eager to adopt anything that remotely resonates with their point of view and giving voice to it digitally makes it dangerous

3. You could make arguments for censoring a half dozen biased news outlets - CNN may be one of them - none of them are nearly as careless as Jones was in the case this thread is actually about

4. Don't tell me what I'm eager for, you presumptive wind bag, and please proof that sentence again.
Why would I want to censor stuff that SUPPORTS my point of view?  You are not only wrong about what I'm supposedly eager about, you can't express it. 

Here's a clue: The point was about censoring harmful disinformation. You've trodden off into some other horse [BLEEP] that wasn't the point.

Your vitriol is the primary driver behind your content, not anything substantive. You have become quite adept at picking up the things you can correct, like typos, while avoiding engaging in any real dialogue. You're smart enough to notice the proofing error, but not genuine enough to address the crux of the argument. Talk about some herp-derp. 

We all know what your point was. Norman addressed it when he asked who gets to decide what's harmful disinformation, and, more importantly, who gets to decide who is censored by it, which is the big concern. You say the courts decide, like that's satisfactory. It's not. They are there to award punitive damages when someone speaks in a way that is harmful to others. They did their job. No one here cares that Alex Jones got financially damaged for spouting off [BLEEP]. 

However, there are several of us that don't want to encourage the process of silencing bad speech because we believe that it's a first principle of Democracy. You remove it, and you remove one of the pillars of liberalism. Your type of thinking will lead to abuse by those in power. It already has. You hide behind the free market on this issue, but is that a cause you really care about? You really think companies should be allowed this kind of discretion? 

MY point was that people like you, who want to silence all the "bad" people, are addressing the symptom, not the disease. The problem is really the failings of our institutions to work for the people, being honest and accountable. If we focus on fixing that, the Alex Jones' of the world lose most of their following. Why don't you point your vitriol towards the establishment that's [BLEEP] everyone over? Alex Jones is small potatoes. 

For all your arrogance, you sure are short-sighted. But hey, maybe you can find some editing mistakes in this post, so you don't have to think about anything. Please present your findings to the forum as proof of your superior intelligence.

OK.
How?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Your vitriol is the primary driver behind your content, not anything substantive. You have become quite adept at picking up the things you can correct, like typos, while avoiding engaging in any real dialogue. You're smart enough to notice the proofing error, but not genuine enough to address the crux of the argument. Talk about some herp-derp. 

We all know what your point was. Norman addressed it when he asked who gets to decide what's harmful disinformation, and, more importantly, who gets to decide who is censored by it, which is the big concern. You say the courts decide, like that's satisfactory. It's not. They are there to award punitive damages when someone speaks in a way that is harmful to others. They did their job. No one here cares that Alex Jones got financially damaged for spouting off [BLEEP]. 

However, there are several of us that don't want to encourage the process of silencing bad speech because we believe that it's a first principle of Democracy. You remove it, and you remove one of the pillars of liberalism. Your type of thinking will lead to abuse by those in power. It already has. You hide behind the free market on this issue, but is that a cause you really care about? You really think companies should be allowed this kind of discretion? 

MY point was that people like you, who want to silence all the "bad" people, are addressing the symptom, not the disease. The problem is really the failings of our institutions to work for the people, being honest and accountable. If we focus on fixing that, the Alex Jones' of the world lose most of their following. Why don't you point your vitriol towards the establishment that's [BLEEP] everyone over? Alex Jones is small potatoes. 

For all your arrogance, you sure are short-sighted. But hey, maybe you can find some editing mistakes in this post, so you don't have to think about anything. Please present your findings to the forum as proof of your superior intelligence.

OK.
How?

Yeah, I don't know, man. That's a tough one. The media is such a tricky topic. You don't want to censor free speech, but you have to have something that works for the people. I think, for starters, we need to make our media non-profit in order to be called news. There can be opinion pieces and shows, but they can't be on news stations and make money. These groups can only refer to themselves as tabloids or entertainment. The fact that our media works for profit from corporations is a HUGE conflict of interest, and I think making this type of distinction would be a good start. I'd also like it to be mandatory that any retraction be permanently affixed to a scrolling chyron, front page of the website, and given adequate news coverage with the person responsible for getting the information incorrect. 

I have been really toying around with the idea of a no-confidence voting protocol in our general elections. It's still in its infancy stage, but I think there's something to it. We need to have some way to remove people who are not working for us. I don't think we need to vote for our public journalists, but I would like to be able to remove them via a vote. Maybe, when we do our federal elections, we can add votes of no-confidence for our journalists/editors of public news outlets that seem too opinionated or playing lose with the facts. A simple majority vote of no-confidence would cause the editor or journalist to be fired. That probably wouldn't work in our current political climate, but I think we need to be thinking more in that direction. 

As for the government, we have the tools, but we don't use them. We really need to fix the way we vote.

---

OK.
How?

Yeah, I don't know, man. That's a tough one. The media is such a tricky topic. You don't want to censor free speech, but you have to have something that works for the people. I think, for starters, we need to make our media non-profit in order to be called news. There can be opinion pieces and shows, but they can't be on news stations and make money. These groups can only refer to themselves as tabloids or entertainment. The fact that our media works for profit from corporations is a HUGE conflict of interest, and I think making this type of distinction would be a good start. I'd also like it to be mandatory that any retraction be permanently affixed to a scrolling chyron, front page of the website, and given adequate news coverage with the person responsible for getting the information incorrect. 

I have been really toying around with the idea of a no-confidence voting protocol in our general elections. It's still in its infancy stage, but I think there's something to it. We need to have some way to remove people who are not working for us. I don't think we need to vote for our public journalists, but I would like to be able to remove them via a vote. Maybe, when we do our federal elections, we can add votes of no-confidence for our journalists/editors of public news outlets that seem too opinionated or playing lose with the facts. A simple majority vote of no-confidence would cause the editor or journalist to be fired. That probably wouldn't work in our current political climate, but I think we need to be thinking more in that direction. 

As for the government, we have the tools, but we don't use them. We really need to fix the way we vote.

I'm on board with requiring news to be not for profit, but I will note the impact of that is probably small.  Look at hospitals, there is not much difference in financial behavior between the supposedly not for profit ones when compared to the for profit ones.  Conglomerates accumulate debt to conglomerate further, etc.

The rest of what you wrote seems dubious to me.  I don't think there should be any kind of license to be a journalist or pundit, and if there's no license, there's nothing to revoke.

Fixing the way we vote, to me that's the main thing.  We really need to get into the weeds on that.

Our legislature is even showing severe signs of decay recently.  Just writing blank checks for the governor and following him like hired lackeys as he chases more and more fox news headlines.  It's not supposed to work like that!

How can we get better legislators?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Yeah, I don't know, man. That's a tough one. The media is such a tricky topic. You don't want to censor free speech, but you have to have something that works for the people. I think, for starters, we need to make our media non-profit in order to be called news. There can be opinion pieces and shows, but they can't be on news stations and make money. These groups can only refer to themselves as tabloids or entertainment. The fact that our media works for profit from corporations is a HUGE conflict of interest, and I think making this type of distinction would be a good start. I'd also like it to be mandatory that any retraction be permanently affixed to a scrolling chyron, front page of the website, and given adequate news coverage with the person responsible for getting the information incorrect. 

I have been really toying around with the idea of a no-confidence voting protocol in our general elections. It's still in its infancy stage, but I think there's something to it. We need to have some way to remove people who are not working for us. I don't think we need to vote for our public journalists, but I would like to be able to remove them via a vote. Maybe, when we do our federal elections, we can add votes of no-confidence for our journalists/editors of public news outlets that seem too opinionated or playing lose with the facts. A simple majority vote of no-confidence would cause the editor or journalist to be fired. That probably wouldn't work in our current political climate, but I think we need to be thinking more in that direction. 

As for the government, we have the tools, but we don't use them. We really need to fix the way we vote.

I'm on board with requiring news to be not for profit, but I will note the impact of that is probably small.  Look at hospitals, there is not much difference in financial behavior between the supposedly not for profit ones when compared to the for profit ones.  Conglomerates accumulate debt to conglomerate further, etc.

The rest of what you wrote seems dubious to me.  I don't think there should be any kind of license to be a journalist or pundit, and if there's no license, there's nothing to revoke.

Fixing the way we vote, to me that's the main thing.  We really need to get into the weeds on that.

Our legislature is even showing severe signs of decay recently.  Just writing blank checks for the governor and following him like hired lackeys as he chases more and more fox news headlines.  It's not supposed to work like that!

How can we get better legislators?

I'd require them to be licensed, just as other professions that can do considerable damage due to incompetency, deceit or fraud can. Lawyers, medical providers, electricians, plumbers, teachers, mechanics, etc. It makes no sense for someone to major in journalism cause they couldn't cut it in other programs (and I personally know 6 local journalists who fit this description) and then them having the ability to spread disinformation/lies without the possibility of any recourse against them. Other professions have the ability to restrict/remove the ability of members to practice thier profession if done in an irresponsible manner. It would weed out the outright liars, which would be most of the staff at CNN, NYT, WaPo and some at Fox.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

I'm on board with requiring news to be not for profit, but I will note the impact of that is probably small.  Look at hospitals, there is not much difference in financial behavior between the supposedly not for profit ones when compared to the for profit ones.  Conglomerates accumulate debt to conglomerate further, etc.

The rest of what you wrote seems dubious to me.  I don't think there should be any kind of license to be a journalist or pundit, and if there's no license, there's nothing to revoke.

Fixing the way we vote, to me that's the main thing.  We really need to get into the weeds on that.

Our legislature is even showing severe signs of decay recently.  Just writing blank checks for the governor and following him like hired lackeys as he chases more and more fox news headlines.  It's not supposed to work like that!

How can we get better legislators?

I'd require them to be licensed, just as other professions that can do considerable damage due to incompetency, deceit or fraud can.  Lawyers, medical providers, electricians, plumbers, teachers, mechanics, etc.  It makes no sense for someone to major in journalism cause they couldn't cut it in other programs (and I personally know 6 local journalists who fit this description) and then them having the ability to spread misinformation/lies without the possibility of any recourse against them.  Other professions have the ability to restrict/remove the ability of members to practice thier profession if done in an irresponsible manner.  It would weed out the outright liars, which would be most of the staff at CNN, NYT, WaPo and some at Fox.

So what you're saying it to abridge the Free Press. Sounds like a good idea to me.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'd require them to be licensed, just as other professions that can do considerable damage due to incompetency, deceit or fraud can.  Lawyers, medical providers, electricians, plumbers, teachers, mechanics, etc.  It makes no sense for someone to major in journalism cause they couldn't cut it in other programs (and I personally know 6 local journalists who fit this description) and then them having the ability to spread misinformation/lies without the possibility of any recourse against them.  Other professions have the ability to restrict/remove the ability of members to practice thier profession if done in an irresponsible manner.  It would weed out the outright liars, which would be most of the staff at CNN, NYT, WaPo and some at Fox.

So what you're saying it to abridge the Free Press. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Licensing doesnt necessarily impede freedom. It would help get rid of the disinformers and liars. I'm also for the freedom to choose my medical provider, lawyer, plumber, electrician, engineer, etc. Should we propose that they should also be unlicensed in the name of freedom? Licensure allows for recourse if needed. And there are plenty of 'journalists' who need that sort of restraint hanging over thier heads.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

So what you're saying it to abridge the Free Press. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Licensing doesnt necessarily impede freedom.  It would help get rid of the disinformers and liars.  I'm also for the freedom to choose my medical provider, lawyer, plumber, electrician, engineer, etc.  Should we propose that they should also be unlicensed in the name of freedom?  Licensure allows for recourse if needed.  And there are plenty of 'journalists' who need that sort of restraint hanging over thier heads.

Licensure is the confiscation of your rights which the government then sells back to you. You can have legal recourse without the entire concept. And yes, licensing absolutely impedes freedom.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Herp-DERP

1. Nothing that idiot says carries weight - he takes advantage of the feeble minded and consequences be damned

2.Leave it in the tabloids - at least a greater % of Americans knew that stuff was garbage - now we have a divided and dumbed down society eager to adopt anything that remotely resonates with their point of view and giving voice to it digitally makes it dangerous

3. You could make arguments for censoring a half dozen biased news outlets - CNN may be one of them - none of them are nearly as careless as Jones was in the case this thread is actually about

4. Don't tell me what I'm eager for, you presumptive wind bag, and please proof that sentence again.
Why would I want to censor stuff that SUPPORTS my point of view?  You are not only wrong about what I'm supposedly eager about, you can't express it. 

Here's a clue: The point was about censoring harmful disinformation. You've trodden off into some other horse [BLEEP] that wasn't the point.

Your vitriol is the primary driver behind your content, not anything substantive. You have become quite adept at picking up the things you can correct, like typos, while avoiding engaging in any real dialogue. You're smart enough to notice the proofing error, but not genuine enough to address the crux of the argument. Talk about some herp-derp. 

We all know what your point was. Norman addressed it when he asked who gets to decide what's harmful disinformation, and, more importantly, who gets to decide who is censored by it, which is the big concern. You say the courts decide, like that's satisfactory. It's not. They are there to award punitive damages when someone speaks in a way that is harmful to others. They did their job. No one here cares that Alex Jones got financially damaged for spouting off [BLEEP]. 

However, there are several of us that don't want to encourage the process of silencing bad speech because we believe that it's a first principle of Democracy. You remove it, and you remove one of the pillars of liberalism. Your type of thinking will lead to abuse by those in power. It already has. You hide behind the free market on this issue, but is that a cause you really care about? You really think companies should be allowed this kind of discretion? 

MY point was that people like you, who want to silence all the "bad" people, are addressing the symptom, not the disease. The problem is really the failings of our institutions to work for the people, being honest and accountable. If we focus on fixing that, the Alex Jones' of the world lose most of their following. Why don't you point your vitriol towards the establishment that's [BLEEP] everyone over? Alex Jones is small potatoes. 

For all your arrogance, you sure are short-sighted. But hey, maybe you can find some editing mistakes in this post, so you don't have to think about anything. Please present your findings to the forum as proof of your superior intelligence.

Says the stupid [BLEEP] who ignored the entire point this whole time. 

LOL

Go look up disinformation, ruminate on it, and get back to me. It's the point of my posting but you keep trying to steer it somewhere else - all the while presuming to tell ME how I feel. 

 Please. 

You really want a moron like Jones to be free to spread disinformation at will to protect some aspect of Democracy he's blown past by miles?  Nah.  You just want to make this an us vs them issue when it isn't - and it doesn't need to be.

---