Warren calls for criminalizing online 'disinformation
4 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Feb. 3, 2020, 1:28 p.m.

Warren calls for criminalizing online 'disinformation,' gets roasted for Orwellian overreach     


"Warren called for “civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating false information about when and how to vote in US elections” on Wednesday, as part of the lengthy and occasionally self-contradictory plan for “fighting digital disinformation” posted to her campaign website.

The policy has raised a few eyebrows, given the candidate’s own tenuous relationship with the truth, but also the slippery slope that tends to come into play whenever censorship is involved."

metmike: With the lady that pretended to be an American Indian for decades to get preferential treatment in college, then in her career(until busted) in charge, you can bet that her blatant, anti science lies about the fake climate crisis/emergency(while life on this greening planet continues to enjoy the best weather and climate in the last 1,000 years during the current climate optimum) would be imposed as the "truth" and atmospheric scientists like me that prove the truth with empirical data/observations and authentic science would be penalized for contradicting her manufactured realities.

Her Green New Deal plan that can only work if somebody discovers green fairy power from some other universe.where the laws of physics and energy are different than on this planet. Slamming that with stark reality truths might be seen as a crime. 

My theory here is that she is doing this as damage control because of her very low honesty and credibility ratings from Americans.  

As a marketing scheme, she is trying to sell an agenda that is the complete opposite of the perception of who she  is based on her history(look everybody, my policy would hold dishonest entities accountable for pushing false information-I must be honest).

Funny thing. Instead of being honest herself,  she is selling an agenda that pretends to enforce honesty......based on the government deciding the truths?

By TimNew - Feb. 3, 2020, 2:05 p.m.
Like Reply

You can bet her "interpretation" of the truth would be the standard.

By bear - Feb. 4, 2020, 2:03 p.m.
Like Reply

when it comes to some topics, some libs hate freedom of speech.  but when it comes to other topics, some pubs hate freedom of speech.  

i will not vote for someone who wants to curb the first amendment.  

By TimNew - Feb. 5, 2020, 3:13 a.m.
Like Reply

I can't recall an instance where I've heard  of a pub proposing a law to limit free speech. Closest I can think of is Trump labeling fake news an enemy of the people and suggesting libel laws include defamation for  outright fictitious news.   That's not really the same thing as  laws that modify the 2ndr amendment. 

Dems OTOH,  well, look at Warren for the latest of many examples.

On another note..   I find it humorous that during the impeachment process,  the dems appeared to hold the Constitution in such high regard.  Meanwhile, they are not fond of the 1st amendment,  are strongly opposed to the 2nd . appear to have little regard for the 4th, hate the Electoral College, and have, up until recently, largely regarded it as "An antiquated obsolete document written by a bunch of old rich white guys".


By metmike - Feb. 5, 2020, 12:41 p.m.
Like Reply

The strategy/game plan is pretty straight forward "have the agenda"  then, manufacture the news which you need to support it.

The quintessential example is the fake climate crisis/emergency.

We're having the best weather/climate for most of life on this GREENING planet in the last 1,000 years. An absolute climate optimum as defined by all of science 60 years ago. 

The agenda is global socialism and spreading the worlds wealth from the rich country's to the poor countries......as well as sustainable development(limiting the amount of natural resources that rich countries consume).

Its all in the Climate Accord that will do nothing to change the (great) weather/climate.

The climate emergency is made up and we will lose the planet in 10 years under that manufactured state........unless we do all the things that they say have to be done..................which, just coincidentally, result in a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor countries and just coincidentally, result in a massive cut back in natural resources(fossil fuels=the life blood of every rich countries economy).

The Green New Deal makes up impossible scenarios of fossil fuels being cut back to being totally replaced by renewables, defying the laws of physics, energy and economies. 

But thats ok in the world of 2020...............where its become common for entities to make stuff up, then tell us that the other side is the one making stuff up and those that disagree with them are "deniers"(of their fake realities) and should be completely shut down, with no voice and even suffer potential time in jail for disagreeing with them.

The Global Warming Thought Police Want Skeptics In 'Jail'