The problem with licensing is that it has the potential to be captured and regulated by the government in a way that favors institutional bias. There are a lot of good, independent journalists out there, and I'd hate to see them get pushed out of the market. I simply think news organizations need to remove profit from the equation. Imo, you cannot call yourself news if your company is for profit. No corporate sponsors. No profit driven motivation. The news needs to be separate from the systems of power, and that's probably the only thing I can think of that starts that process without curtailing free speech. I still think we need to have a way to enforce standards that benefit the people, but that's a tricky subject.

---

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.

Shocker. Still haven't addressed the point. I know you think you're wowing us all with your brilliance by puffing up your chest and talking up to others with unearned confidence, but highlighting one word is not winning a debate. Most of us don't need to ruminate on the word 'disinformation.' 

Again, I ask you. Who decides what is disinformation? How to you prove it? You said the courts before, but did you know, that the courts haven't proven whether or not Alex Jones was intentionally deceiving the public? That wasn't a part of this process. They proved he profited from spreading falsehoods about a tragedy, but they can't even get the evidence to prove motive. So, tell me Mr. Smartest Guy in the Room, do we create special trials to prove what's disinformation? Will that get applied evenly to large corporations? Will that apply to our government? Then, how we decide who gets censored for it? For how long? 

The reason you are so ill equipped to process this is because it's not grammar. It's not black and white, and you're just not a nuanced person. At least you don't play one on this messageboard.

---

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.

Shocker. Still haven't addressed the point. I know you think you're wowing us all with your brilliance by puffing up your chest and talking up to others with unearned confidence, but highlighting one word is not winning a debate. Most of us don't need to ruminate on the word 'disinformation.' 

Again, I ask you. Who decides what is disinformation? How to you prove it? You said the courts before, but did you know, that the courts haven't proven whether or not Alex Jones was intentionally deceiving the public? That wasn't a part of this process. They proved he profited from spreading falsehoods about a tragedy, but they can't even get the evidence to prove motive. So, tell me Mr. Smartest Guy in the Room, do we create special trials to prove what's disinformation? Will that get applied evenly to large corporations? Will that apply to our government? Then, how we decide who gets censored for it? For how long? 

The reason you are so ill equipped to process this is because it's not grammar. It's not black and white, and you're just not a nuanced person. At least you don't play one on this messageboard.

I don't think there was ever a shred of doubt about whether or not it was disinformation and i've been clear as a bell on it.

You keep trying to change the point to that debate. That was never the point. 

There is no debate. 

You wanna go around believing that clown didn't know he was spreading falsehood with intent to deceive, you have right at it. 

I mean, it makes you a complete [BLEEP] fool, but go for it.

---

This isn't about Alex Jones. We are just using Jones as a stand in for the broader ideals.

---

Shocker. Still haven't addressed the point. I know you think you're wowing us all with your brilliance by puffing up your chest and talking up to others with unearned confidence, but highlighting one word is not winning a debate. Most of us don't need to ruminate on the word 'disinformation.' 

Again, I ask you. Who decides what is disinformation? How to you prove it? You said the courts before, but did you know, that the courts haven't proven whether or not Alex Jones was intentionally deceiving the public? That wasn't a part of this process. They proved he profited from spreading falsehoods about a tragedy, but they can't even get the evidence to prove motive. So, tell me Mr. Smartest Guy in the Room, do we create special trials to prove what's disinformation? Will that get applied evenly to large corporations? Will that apply to our government? Then, how we decide who gets censored for it? For how long? 

The reason you are so ill equipped to process this is because it's not grammar. It's not black and white, and you're just not a nuanced person. At least you don't play one on this messageboard.

I don't think there was ever a shred of doubt about whether or not it was disinformation and i've been clear as a bell on it.

You keep trying to change the point to that debate. That was never the point. 

There is no debate. 

You wanna go around believing that clown didn't know he was spreading falsehood with intent to deceive, you have right at it. 

I mean, it makes you a complete [BLEEP] fool, but go for it.

I have no doubt that the 2020 election was stolen. Disinformation or truth? Who decides? Some have said that people who share my belief are traitors. Should government get to censor and imprison me for my belief? How about if I talk about it or write an editorial about it? What if I use it as a platform for my own political campaign? At what point does my belief become a crime in your opinion? And what beliefs do you hold that I will eventually use against you?

---

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

I don't think there was ever a shred of doubt about whether or not it was disinformation and i've been clear as a bell on it.

You keep trying to change the point to that debate. That was never the point. 

There is no debate. 

You wanna go around believing that clown didn't know he was spreading falsehood with intent to deceive, you have right at it. 

I mean, it makes you a complete [BLEEP] fool, but go for it.

I have no doubt that the 2020 election was stolen. Disinformation or truth? Who decides? Some have said that people who share my belief are traitors. Should government get to censor and imprison me for my belief? How about if I talk about it or write an editorial about it? What if I use it as a platform for my own political campaign? At what point does my belief become a crime in your opinion? And what beliefs do you hold that I will eventually use against you?

These are hard questions.
They'd be less difficult to answer if you demanded evidence before you decided to believe something.
You know, the way you do with stuff you actually know about, viruses and vaccines.

---

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

To be fair, he didn't demand evidence for that, either.  

---

I have no doubt that the 2020 election was stolen. Disinformation or truth? Who decides? Some have said that people who share my belief are traitors. Should government get to censor and imprison me for my belief? How about if I talk about it or write an editorial about it? What if I use it as a platform for my own political campaign? At what point does my belief become a crime in your opinion? And what beliefs do you hold that I will eventually use against you?

These are hard questions.
They'd be less difficult to answer if you demanded evidence before you decided to believe something.
You know, the way you do with stuff you actually know about, viruses and vaccines.

I thought the debate here had become more about lying about obvious facts, not about someone's beliefs. If a journalist has outright lied about something that is later proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then yes they should be de-jobbed, disbarred, discredited, whatever we call it. CNN leaking the debate questions in 2016 is one example.

---

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

Shocker. Still haven't addressed the point. I know you think you're wowing us all with your brilliance by puffing up your chest and talking up to others with unearned confidence, but highlighting one word is not winning a debate. Most of us don't need to ruminate on the word 'disinformation.' 

Again, I ask you. Who decides what is disinformation? How to you prove it? You said the courts before, but did you know, that the courts haven't proven whether or not Alex Jones was intentionally deceiving the public? That wasn't a part of this process. They proved he profited from spreading falsehoods about a tragedy, but they can't even get the evidence to prove motive. So, tell me Mr. Smartest Guy in the Room, do we create special trials to prove what's disinformation? Will that get applied evenly to large corporations? Will that apply to our government? Then, how we decide who gets censored for it? For how long? 

The reason you are so ill equipped to process this is because it's not grammar. It's not black and white, and you're just not a nuanced person. At least you don't play one on this messageboard.

I don't think there was ever a shred of doubt about whether or not it was disinformation and i've been clear as a bell on it.

You keep trying to change the point to that debate. That was never the point. 

There is no debate. 

You wanna go around believing that clown didn't know he was spreading falsehood with intent to deceive, you have right at it. 

I mean, it makes you a complete [BLEEP] fool, but go for it.

I personally like it when everyone has a platform to speak what they believe.

I'd rather know exactly what a person thinks than be blindsided by their stupidity just because they had the intelligence to shut up about their moronic ideas and opinions for most of their life.

It's always better for light to be shined on all things - even the darkness.

---

To be fair, he didn't demand evidence for that, either.  

Sure I did, and I found it. You found evidence to disbelieve it. That's the exact impasse of this question, ie "I'm right." "No, I'm right." "No I'm right and you have to shut up or go to jail."

---

These are hard questions.
They'd be less difficult to answer if you demanded evidence before you decided to believe something.
You know, the way you do with stuff you actually know about, viruses and vaccines.

I thought the debate here had become more about lying about obvious facts, not about someone's beliefs. If a journalist has outright lied about something that is later proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then yes they should be de-jobbed, disbarred, discredited, whatever we call it. CNN leaking the debate questions in 2016 is one example.

"Obvious facts" are not obvious. I only know what I've been told about Sandy Hook, what do you "know" and how do you know you have the "obvious facts?" The same with the Election, January 6th, the Ukraine, the WTC, the JFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, the USS Maine, all the way back to Eve eating the apple. We only know what we've been told and have almost no real basis to believe anything at all ever. And then when/if only the "official" story is permitted and dissent means imprisonment you have a perfect environment for tyranny to take all control.

---

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

To be fair, he didn't demand evidence for that, either.  

Sure I did, and I found it. You found evidence to disbelieve it. That's the exact impasse of this question, ie "I'm right." "No, I'm right." "No I'm right and you have to shut up or go to jail."

---

I thought the debate here had become more about lying about obvious facts, not about someone's beliefs. If a journalist has outright lied about something that is later proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then yes they should be de-jobbed, disbarred, discredited, whatever we call it. CNN leaking the debate questions in 2016 is one example.

"Obvious facts" are not obvious. I only know what I've been told about Sandy Hook, what do you "know" and how do you know you have the "obvious facts?" The same with the Election, January 6th, the Ukraine, the WTC, the JFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, the USS Maine, all the way back to Eve eating the apple. We only know what we've been told and have almost no real basis to believe anything at all ever. And then when/if only the "official" story is permitted and dissent means imprisonment you have a perfect environment for tyranny to take all control.

You're being obtuse.
For recent events, evidence can be presented by anyone who witnessed or participated in it.
What evidence do you have to believe the 2020 election was stolen?
Where did 12,000 votes in GA come from?
Where did 20,000 votes in WI come from?
Where did 10,000 votes in AZ come from?
Where did 81,000 votes in PA come from?
Where did 154,000 votes in MI come from?

These are all states Trump won in 2016.
Two of them have Republican governors and secretaries of state.
How did this much fakery happen in this many places?
Where is the evidence?

---

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

To be fair, he didn't demand evidence for that, either.  

Sure I did, and I found it. You found evidence to disbelieve it. That's the exact impasse of this question, ie "I'm right." "No, I'm right." "No I'm right and you have to shut up or go to jail."

---

I thought the debate here had become more about lying about obvious facts, not about someone's beliefs. If a journalist has outright lied about something that is later proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then yes they should be de-jobbed, disbarred, discredited, whatever we call it. CNN leaking the debate questions in 2016 is one example.

"Obvious facts" are not obvious. I only know what I've been told about Sandy Hook, what do you "know" and how do you know you have the "obvious facts?" The same with the Election, January 6th, the Ukraine, the WTC, the JFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, the USS Maine, all the way back to Eve eating the apple. We only know what we've been told and have almost no real basis to believe anything at all ever. And then when/if only the "official" story is permitted and dissent means imprisonment you have a perfect environment for tyranny to take all control.

We all know this didn't happen because we are living in a simulation.....

---

This isn't about Alex Jones. We are just using Jones as a stand in for the broader ideals.

This thread is about Alex Jones.
 You turned to a broader debate with completely different goalposts when you were shut down. 

Carry on...

---

Sure I did, and I found it. You found evidence to disbelieve it. That's the exact impasse of this question, ie "I'm right." "No, I'm right." "No I'm right and you have to shut up or go to jail."

---

"Obvious facts" are not obvious. I only know what I've been told about Sandy Hook, what do you "know" and how do you know you have the "obvious facts?" The same with the Election, January 6th, the Ukraine, the WTC, the JFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, the USS Maine, all the way back to Eve eating the apple. We only know what we've been told and have almost no real basis to believe anything at all ever. And then when/if only the "official" story is permitted and dissent means imprisonment you have a perfect environment for tyranny to take all control.

You're being obtuse.
For recent events, evidence can be presented by anyone who witnessed or participated in it.
What evidence do you have to believe the 2020 election was stolen?
Where did 12,000 votes in GA come from?
Where did 20,000 votes in WI come from?
Where did 10,000 votes in AZ come from?
Where did 81,000 votes in PA come from?
Where did 154,000 votes in MI come from?

These are all states Trump won in 2016.
Two of them have Republican governors and secretaries of state.
How did this much fakery happen in this many places?
Where is the evidence?

And what proof do you have that those votes were legitimate? You take it on faith, you don't actually know anything.

---

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

You're being obtuse.
For recent events, evidence can be presented by anyone who witnessed or participated in it.
What evidence do you have to believe the 2020 election was stolen?
Where did 12,000 votes in GA come from?
Where did 20,000 votes in WI come from?
Where did 10,000 votes in AZ come from?
Where did 81,000 votes in PA come from?
Where did 154,000 votes in MI come from?

These are all states Trump won in 2016.
Two of them have Republican governors and secretaries of state.
How did this much fakery happen in this many places?
Where is the evidence?

And what proof do you have that those votes were legitimate? You take it on faith, you don't actually know anything.

They had evidence.  They had ballots with unique bar codes.  If any of those ballots were off, someone could have presented evidence demonstrating that.  No one did.

---

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

And what proof do you have that those votes were legitimate? You take it on faith, you don't actually know anything.

They had evidence.  They had ballots with unique bar codes.  If any of those ballots were off, someone could have presented evidence demonstrating that.  No one did.

So you've been told.

---

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

This isn't about Alex Jones. We are just using Jones as a stand in for the broader ideals.

This thread is about Alex Jones.
 You turned to a broader debate with completely different goalposts when you were shut down. 

Carry on...

Haha, shut down. You make me laugh, dude. You're a giant in your own mind.

I'll carry on.

---

To be fair, he didn't demand evidence for that, either.  

Sure I did, and I found it. You found evidence to disbelieve it. That's the exact impasse of this question, ie "I'm right." "No, I'm right." "No I'm right and you have to shut up or go to jail."

I put that stupid winky smiley face on there so you would know I was joking. You point stands, though, and I agree with it.

---

They had evidence.  They had ballots with unique bar codes.  If any of those ballots were off, someone could have presented evidence demonstrating that.  No one did.

So you've been told.

What have you been told?
What did the person telling you present as evidence?

---

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

Look at the numbers, dude. They don't make sense.

---

So you've been told.

What have you been told?
What did the person telling you present as evidence?

What did the person telling you present as evidence?

---

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