Obama signs anti-propaganda bill on Chirstmas
- Thread starter Zazen
- Start date
R
ripskater
Guest
Even if those are lies, we've got freedom of the press.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 57,691
- Reaction score
- 70,578
D
Deleted member 409801
Guest
Youre not thinking about this very hard if youre blaise about giving the govt the power to decide what constitutes the " truth" , who makes the call , whats the threshold for " false " , what are the safe gaurds? All important details wouldnt you say , and ive heard nada on that from the " but we gotta do SOMETHING " crowd
R
ripskater
Guest
If you and I wrote for a newspaper, we'd write the exact opposite about a political event or candidate. We've got the freedom to write our opinion. And we have the freedom to lie (not that I think we would).
If a newswriter lies, people will stop paying attention and won't read their stuff.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,544
- Reaction score
- 12,406
I need more detail but at face value, I don't think the bill has legs if it can shut down something just by labeling it as propaganda they don't like. I understand the argument for counter-propaganda (though I don't entirely agree with it either) but the criminilization part doesn't work for a free press. You don't combat misinformation by letting government filter it for us. You try your best to combat it with education and hoping the masses can sort through it themselves. Once you reach the point where you take away rights in order to guide people easier to "real news", you are fucked and have a state run press essentially. This is an example of a bill that shows both parties do not care about the peoples rights and will take as much rope as we give them in losing rights. They are scumbags.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,544
- Reaction score
- 12,406
This hasn't been shown to be true. People more and more these days pick a specific angle they believe and follow a slow decline into the most radical version of it over time by only using those sources they agree with. Credibility seems up in the air today with any media outlet right now. However, that still doesn't mean government should be shutting the sources down, even if people are buying into it. I think lawsuits should be filed if something is just flat out fraudulent but the government shouldn't be doing it necessarily.
R
ripskater
Guest
I should have said "some people." But you are right.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,878
- Reaction score
- 4,064
It's an attack on the 1st amendment, and leaving the concept of "fake news" up to interpretation is dangerous. What constitutes "fake news," and should it be criminalized?
R
ripskater
Guest
Also, this is one of those things that Obama will do to screw with our basic freedoms. Look for more of this the next 3 1/2 weeks. Obama ain't done with some big news making bills and executive orders. We'll have plenty to talk about.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,544
- Reaction score
- 12,406
The other problem is some people aren't even digesting information with the source of a filter. They see the news story and don't even look at what site they are on. Some of these sites literally are just the one page of the spoof story with the appearance it's a full site when all the links to other parts of it really have nothing. I think far more of this is on the people being irresponsible and you can't have government somehow guide them to knowing better through force.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,544
- Reaction score
- 12,406
Obama is termed out so he can afford to do a fuck you type bill to the public without getting penalized for it. What I don't get is why did the GOP house and senate let this shit through? We don't have either side defend this shit when it comes to rights. The first few times it was for security. Now their slowly creeping in more with fight propaganda. Each one is another bullshit step to take more control. This being the type of Bill that passes when you have a democrat White House and a GOP congress should be very very concerning
R
ripskater
Guest
Because much of the GOP is sold out to the new world order globalists.
We are seeing why Trump won the republican primary and the election.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,878
- Reaction score
- 4,064
It reminds me of something else...
https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007677
That is the direction in which liberals will move. Control and censorship of the media.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,544
- Reaction score
- 12,406
I wouldn't say it's a globalist movement but it definitely is a united one between both parties to strengthen the government's grip on it's people. This doesn't seem to be a thing that concerns them at all except when one side has power and they want to pull a media stunt acting like they are worried about tyranny. They all are full of shit.
R
ripskater
Guest
I agree with that!
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,544
- Reaction score
- 12,406
Not Trump and I keep it at there cause I don't care to hear people bitch about voting for obscure third party platforms or voting for Clinton. Limited options were given and they all were very very flawed this election cycle and I blame people for not participating in the primary more that I had such awful options.
This actually brings up another point. People may not agree with this but I tend to vote for house representative just on these type of issues. I look up the voters list for all these shit bills with the NSA and other right taking legislation and see if the guy who is in voted for them. He can maintain my vote just by being reasonable in being against these type of bills. That's how low I set the bar for a house representative. To the point where I just want them to not vote against slowly removing rights.
R
ripskater
Guest
I voted for Trump because of this very topic. Let's hope he puts a stop to this crap.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,544
- Reaction score
- 12,406
I was just about to rant that we are fucked on this issue either way in 2016. Trump isn't principled and certain stances he has taken make me think he would pass similar things I don't agree with, the Muslim registry being one of them. Clinton was a war hawk so I assume she would've been all for NSA surveillance, etc. The fact is, people either don't care enough to vote for pro-rights candidates in the primary or they actually want this type of policy because they easily can be flipped with arguments of national security etc for a power grab of rights.
We are fucked the next four years Rip. This is the party in control who passed the patriot act. Trump despite being very very pro-Russian has declared Snowden a traitor and had harsh sentencing terms for him so I don't think he is going to come in and really reverse course. All we are going to get is one or two bullshit fillbuster nights from Rand Paul that makes the news and doesn't matter cause the bill still passes. Nothing changes with this cause both parties easily concede the rights when they get the power.
