Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
I find the death threats idea a troubling argument, primarily because there is no minimum IQ requirement for the franchise, so many voters who go by pure emotions will likely buy into it. Republicans are sometimes guilty of making this argument, but due to the whining required, it is more popular with the Dems.
Here, Congressman Glenn Ivey (D-MD) uses the death threats cannard against Republicans. He invokes the name of Nina Jankowicz, former candidate for essentially Minister of Truth, someone I would have thought that Democrat would be eager to have forgotten. Apparently Nina reported that she got death threats after her plan to narrow the range of opinions allowed in public was itself made public.
No kidding. Politicians and other public figures do things that make people mad, and when they do, some of the unbalanced among them will make death threats to public figures. Anyone famous has to be ready for that. I'm sure networks get threatening communications when they cancel shows. We cannot tailor our speech to avoid angering idiots who make threats. Not just because it would be wrong to allow ourselves to be bullied like that, but also because there is no idea one could express publicly that is guaranteed not to make any mentally disturbed people angry.
I don't know why Ivey seems so intrested in Jankowicz, but I can certainly guess. He seems like exactly the kind of successful, button-down, straight arrow type who is attracted to the crazy. I know that type, becuase that was me until I found the craziest of all more than thirty years ago.
He also brought up a higher tech version of the "fire in a crowded theater" argument in favor of government influencing social media. He asked about a hypothetical in which a kid reported a live shooter on social media and caused panic. Should a government official contact social media to say that is false. His witness had a great response.
Government is allowed to speak on mass and social media in its own voice. It can get on social media and say, "This is the principal of North Junior High and no, there is no shooter, that is a hoax." By the same token, they could have gone on Twitter and said, "This is the CDC. The talk about the vaccine not preventing subsequent infections is a hoax. So is all talk of hazard from this vaccine, which is not at all experimental, and has no known long-term negative effects."
Why go through the elaborate ruse of calling social media and saying, "I think this violates your terms of service. Can you take action, on it please? No, don't say we told you to, just do it." I wouldn't trust that any further than I could throw it.
Here, Congressman Glenn Ivey (D-MD) uses the death threats cannard against Republicans. He invokes the name of Nina Jankowicz, former candidate for essentially Minister of Truth, someone I would have thought that Democrat would be eager to have forgotten. Apparently Nina reported that she got death threats after her plan to narrow the range of opinions allowed in public was itself made public.
No kidding. Politicians and other public figures do things that make people mad, and when they do, some of the unbalanced among them will make death threats to public figures. Anyone famous has to be ready for that. I'm sure networks get threatening communications when they cancel shows. We cannot tailor our speech to avoid angering idiots who make threats. Not just because it would be wrong to allow ourselves to be bullied like that, but also because there is no idea one could express publicly that is guaranteed not to make any mentally disturbed people angry.
I don't know why Ivey seems so intrested in Jankowicz, but I can certainly guess. He seems like exactly the kind of successful, button-down, straight arrow type who is attracted to the crazy. I know that type, becuase that was me until I found the craziest of all more than thirty years ago.
He also brought up a higher tech version of the "fire in a crowded theater" argument in favor of government influencing social media. He asked about a hypothetical in which a kid reported a live shooter on social media and caused panic. Should a government official contact social media to say that is false. His witness had a great response.
Government is allowed to speak on mass and social media in its own voice. It can get on social media and say, "This is the principal of North Junior High and no, there is no shooter, that is a hoax." By the same token, they could have gone on Twitter and said, "This is the CDC. The talk about the vaccine not preventing subsequent infections is a hoax. So is all talk of hazard from this vaccine, which is not at all experimental, and has no known long-term negative effects."
Why go through the elaborate ruse of calling social media and saying, "I think this violates your terms of service. Can you take action, on it please? No, don't say we told you to, just do it." I wouldn't trust that any further than I could throw it.
