Uhhhhhhhh yes. They both are equally important in their own ways. Argue all you want, you wont get far.
Your right to freedom of speech can't be taken away from you. At least not yet, give it time and I'm sure we can make it happen.
Like I said Sly, Both "rights" are equally important in their own way. You can argue about which one is more important or which one can be legally fucked with, but I was never debating that at all. To me, both rights are important, that's all I said. If you are weighting one against the other then that is a different conversation all together, but I was not attempting to do so.
I've now taken the time to read the bill, particularly section 3-b "Functions", which details the activities of "The Center for Information Analysis and Response." Having read through it, I fail to see anything therein that would allow the government to (in your words) "start using this bill against media/journalists that do not 'fall in line' with the narrative that the Government wants to push." Since I don't see anything nefarious, clearly I'm "literatacy <sic> challenged", so perhaps you could assist a poor mental midget such as myself in understanding what it is in this bill of which I should be so concerned?
No, you added the "in their own way" part in a later post. Guns are a tool that can be used to aid in free speech but free speech is the foundation of freedom and liberty.
I see you're down for the US Ministry of Truth? Since when has the Government ever done something correctly for the people? You honestly believe they are going to allow you to see unfettered information? My apologies, you have been taken aback by my typo from my phone, my bad. Blame regular sized thumbs. Midget doesn't run in my family. It's more of a bill that further chips away at press liberties in the US, and which sets the stage for future which hunts and website shutdowns, purely as a result of an accusation that any one media outlet or site is considered as a source of "disinformation and propaganda" and is shut down by the government. Furthermore, outsourcing the "Ministry of Truth" to non-gov sources allows biased companies to directly influence what is being put forth as "truth". This is a clear path to future censorship..
Sly, never in my post did I weigh these two against each other; you are starting an argument/debate for no reason. This is what I said: And it's exactly that. They are both equally important. I am not saying they are EQUAL to each other, but both independently important in their own unique way, both equally important to the citizen. Sorry I had to fucking spell it out there for you. LOL
If you honestly can't come up one thing then maybe it's time to leave the country. Oh wait, I got one... I got one... Didn't you recently say that you work for the government? So maybe just maybe hiring you was the one thing the government has done correctly? Or not.
What I honestly believe is that the bill itself allows for collection and analysis of information rather than suppression thereof. No, I don't trust information provided by or endorsed by the government. But as long as there are no provisos in the bill actually preventing the dissemination of contrary information from other sources--even the nefarious ones the government might see as distributing "propaganda"--then I see nothing that rises to the level of "censorship".
Do you have something else to contribute or are you going to troll me today. I see you take turns around here, so today must be mine? LOL. Yes I work for them. I love working for the country, but that doesn't mean I think it is infallible, and I don't think it's capable of determining what is "true" or "false" for a citizen to see and consume.
I can respect this. Well said. I guess we will see. Ultimately I hate the fake news sites, but I also do not like the fact that biased companies (Funded by Soros for the left, or whomever on the right) can be the "buck stops here" when determining who is trustworthy. We all know the majority of media is biased towards the left and now things like Google, Reddit, YouTube, Twitter are censoring conservative viewpoints, where will it stop, whose going to provide the checks and balances for this when if an outside site brings in alternative sources it can be labeled as "fake". I see no good things from this, but will see...
I just think it's funny how you talk about the bill of rights and then just a few posts later say that the government hasn't done anything correctly. I can think of many things that the government has done correctly for the people.
The bill that allows government to spy on us is written the same way. It's like you expect government to follow the laws.
In all but two states, voting age citizens convicted of a felony are barred from voting for some period of time. Laws vary in each state. While many states restore voting rights to individuals automatically after they exit jail or prison, others permanently disenfranchise people with a past felony conviction or require they petition the government to have their right restored. This is a short up-to-date state guide to voting for ex-offenders. For more, visit the resources on the right. http://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/special-circumstances/voting-as-an-ex-offender/
If our concerns over government censorship are based on an assumption that the government won't follow the laws, then it follows that the introduction of new laws should have no impact on our concerns over government censorship.
If you are a conspiracy theorist who believes the government does not obey the laws, then what does it matter what this bill says, and whether it becomes law or not? barfo Edit: Platypus beat me to that point.
They interpret the laws to suit their needs. This bill authorizes spending. I don't believe the bill is meant to censor The People. I'm not at all sure the government SHOULD censor anyone, including our enemies. I just don't trust government to not stomp on our rights.
