Psaki reveals White House (government) is consulting with Facebook to 'flag misinformation'

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Well established precedent makes it clear that any action by government to censor or any prior restraint is a violation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it and expression of freedom of speech. Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

When government admits that it is collaborating with the private sector to censor, I think this issue is well settled.

The fact that you refuse to admit it speaks VOLUMES.

 

[Oddball]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation
Critics roundly condemned the White House after Press Secretary Jen Psaki revealed the Biden administration is working with Facebook to flag "problematic" posts that "spread disinformation" on COVID-19.

On Thursday, Psaki was asked a question regarding the Biden administration’s request for tech companies to be more "aggressive" when policing what they referred to as "misinformation." Psaki revealed that the White House is "in regular touch with social media platforms" to handle it.

COMMENT:

BOOOM!!! That is GOVERNMENT using Facebook as a tool of censorship!!!

1ST AMENDMENT WILL APPLY!!!

dblack?

Corporations cannot do on behalf of gubmint, what gubmint itself is prohibited from doing.

Of course they can. Why not?

So, all a tyrannical government has to do is pressure a corporation to censor free speech and you think it's NOT government action?

Seriously?

Never, ever, EVER call yourself a libertarian.

Whatever it is that you dumb fuckers imagine "libertarian" to mean - I ain't it, rest assured.

I know what "fascist" means, and you are an apologist for it, fake glibertarian.

 

[Oddball]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Prior Restraint

Prior restraint allows the government to review the content of printed materials and prevent their publication. Prior restraint usually violates the First Amendment.

mtsu.edu

 

[Shelzin]

Well established precedent makes it clear that any action by government to censor or any prior restraint is a violation.

I'm not saying you are wrong on this... I am saying I don't know this precedent. I do think it's wrong what the government is doing. I'm not sure legally there is anything to be done about it.

I will of course support any actions that prevent this kind of thing in the future. I look forward to the debates on this.

 

[dblack]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

 

[Oddball]

Well established precedent makes it clear that any action by government to censor or any prior restraint is a violation.

I'm not saying you are wrong on this... I am saying I don't know this precedent. I do think it's wrong what the government is doing. I'm not sure legally there is anything to be done about it.

I will of course support any actions that prevent this kind of thing in the future. I look forward to the debates on this.

Fair enough.

USSC has ruled that prior restraint by corporate entities is defacto censorship.

 

[Oddball]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

No you're not....You're adamantly pro-fascist, which is the flip side of the socialist coin.

You are an even poorer "libertarian" than the Golfing Goofball.

 

[dblack]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it and expression of freedom of speech. Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

When government admits that it is collaborating with the private sector to censor, I think this issue is well settled.

Right. And and that's why I want to make it clear that your understanding of liberty is radically different than mine. You seem unable to make the distinction between government and private citizens.

 

[dblack]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

No you're not....You're adamantly pro-fascist, which is the flip side of the socialist coin.

You are an even poorer "libertarian" than the Golfing Goofball.

Good, good - steer around any valid points that undermine your delusions. It's the Trumpster way!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

You have left out a very important fact here, dblack

If the White House calls you up and says "hey, we want you to censor any anti-socialist stuff on your site" and you weren't doing it before, now what?

You can make all the excuses in the world you want, but you know goddamn well that this is fascist horse shit.

Let's flip it around on you. Government wants socialism. They want to eliminate any anti-socialism statements or comments. They pressure Facebook to kick you the **** off for saying anything about free speech on any platform not just Facebook. They call up USMB, and tell them, "kick all everybody off who is anti-socialist are we gonna find a reason to **** you up.". Or, "you don't get all this funding we have sitting around if you don't do it."

If you don't believe that that is government action then sir you have no business calling yourself anything but an authoritarian stooge.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it and expression of freedom of speech. Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

When government admits that it is collaborating with the private sector to censor, I think this issue is well settled.

Right. And and that's why I want to make it clear that your understanding of liberty is radically different than mine. You seem unable to make the distinction between government and private citizens.

You seem to be incapable of seeing how the private sector can act as the agent of government, and we have no liberty at all.

You still don't ******* get it do you?

Tell us what government censorship is? Tell us what prior restraint is? What does the first amendment mean?

 

[Shelzin]

Right. And and that's why I want to make it clear that your understanding of liberty is radically different than mine. You seem unable to make the distinction between government and private citizens.

Right... But... The government SHOULD NOT have any opinion, sway, or comment on what is said on any media platform that does not violate law.

I think that's the problem here. Not what Facebook allows... But what the government is doing to form that.

 

[excalibur]

This will be added as part of Trump's amended complaint in his recently filed lawsuit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

No you're not....You're adamantly pro-fascist, which is the flip side of the socialist coin.

You are an even poorer "libertarian" than the Golfing Goofball.

Good, good - steer around any valid points that undermine your delusions. It's the Trumpster way!

Man I thought you weren't quite as full of shit as you really are. You proved me wrong.

So government can send a private citizen into your house and gather up all this evidence against you, and it's OK. Government didn't really do it, a citizen did it. Your fourth amendment rights can go **** themselves right up the ass right?

You really aren't very good at this, are you?

 

[dblack]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

You have left out a very important fact here, dblack

If the White House calls you up and says "hey, we want you to censor any anti-socialist stuff on your site" and you weren't doing it before, now what?

You can make all the excuses in the world you want, but you know goddamn well that this is fascist horse shit.

Let's flip it around on you. Government wants socialism. They want to eliminate any anti-socialism statements or comments. They pressure Facebook to kick you the **** off for saying anything about free speech on any platform not just Facebook. They call up USMB, and tell them, "kick all everybody off who is anti-socialist are we gonna find a reason to **** you up.". Or, "you don't get all this funding we have sitting around if you don't do it."

Sure - that's dead wrong. If there are threats and coercion going on, and you have evidence of that - let's nail them. But I don't honestly think that's what's going on.

What you pussies are too cowardly to face is that people are fed up with Trumpster dumbfuckery. And a lot of those people run businesses, so they are "colluding" to give you the boot. Too bad. Maybe if you weren't such ignorant jackasses it wouldn't have happened.

 

[odanny]

It's documented that Covid disinformation on Facebook is leading to vaccine hesitancy, and overall ignorance as well.

Facebook is a plague that preys on the ignorant. What the White House is working on is changing this algorithms that make this disinformation a steady stream of fake news on yours news feed.

It IS a public health emergency (Covid + ignorance about it)

 

[dblack]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

No you're not....You're adamantly pro-fascist, which is the flip side of the socialist coin.

You are an even poorer "libertarian" than the Golfing Goofball.

Good, good - steer around any valid points that undermine your delusions. It's the Trumpster way!

Man I thought you weren't quite as full of shit as you really are. You proved me wrong.

I've proved you wrong repeatedly. That should tell you something.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To be fair...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government has made no such law. However I do believe that it has violated the spirit in which the Amendment was made.

Should this admonition apply to everyone? I mean, if I have a website, and I agree with the current government that Trumpsters are miscreants, beneath contempt, and ban them from my site - is that a violation of the "spirit" of the First Amendment, of freedom of speech? Or is it actually an expression of freedom of speech? Should I be prohibited from "censoring" them?

Or let's flip around. I'm adamantly anti-socialist. If I censor pro-socialist comments on my website, is that a violation of the First? Or is it a valid expression of my values?

You have left out a very important fact here, dblack

If the White House calls you up and says "hey, we want you to censor any anti-socialist stuff on your site" and you weren't doing it before, now what?

You can make all the excuses in the world you want, but you know goddamn well that this is fascist horse shit.

Let's flip it around on you. Government wants socialism. They want to eliminate any anti-socialism statements or comments. They pressure Facebook to kick you the **** off for saying anything about free speech on any platform not just Facebook. They call up USMB, and tell them, "kick all everybody off who is anti-socialist are we gonna find a reason to **** you up.". Or, "you don't get all this funding we have sitting around if you don't do it."

Sure - that's dead wrong. If there are threats and coercion going on, and you have evidence of that - let's nail them. But I don't honestly think that's what's going on.

What you pussies are too cowardly to face is that people are fed up with Trumpster dumbfuckery. And a lot of those people run businesses, so they are "colluding" to give you the boot. Too bad. Maybe if you weren't such ignorant jackasses it wouldn't have happened.

So if a private citizen just wants to go onto your house and take out a bunch of evidence and give it to the police, you're OK with that? Go **** the fourth amendment in the ass?

Is that what you're telling us?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]