Log in

View Full Version : Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8

kamiliam
05-03-2022, 12:58 PM
If Elon gets it he has publicly stated that “laws” will be the basis for moderation. Now whose laws? This is an international platform. Many other countries have free speech as a right, just with differing interpretations. According to the one person I have ever heard say this, the United States Constitution (a government document once again) gives “natural” special rights somehow, so Twitter will probably based on US government’s interpretation of free speech. If he somehow decides to allow all the vile racist scum to spew based on some standard of his own he will find that people just don’t want to exist in that environment and he will suffer. This has happened on all the conservative apps where they claimed hands off moderation till their feeds were filled with images of actual shit and nazi symbols.

Eric in all your imaginary hand wringing over being censored for your opinions online have you ever thought of those actually sent to jail for their free speech. What opinions do they try to express? Sedition act of 1918? The things Eugene Debs said in his speech is common place not just on Twitter/social media but also certain newspapers/books. Though the actual sedition act was repelled it is tied to the espionage act which still stands and does punish whistleblowers to this day. Reminder we have been at war constantly since then. There are real actual battles in free speech, not being able to flood social media with lying propaganda is not one of them.

eagle2
05-03-2022, 02:04 PM
As we have discussed , nothing Trump said or posted came close to a direct incitement of violence. Most of what Berenson posted about Covid issues was correct.


He repeatedly put out lies, falsely stating the election was stolen, and at the rally, he was clearly advocating violence. He told his rabid followers to "fight like hell or you're going to lose your country." The rioting on 1/6 would not have happened without Trump repeatedly lying about the election being stolen, not to mention his direct call to violence.

Berenson was wrong about practically everything on covid, and was putting out lies and misinformation about the vaccine.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/



You are totally mistaken about Hunter's laptop. The N.Y. Post story about its contents has been proven to be 100% correct. So says the N.Y. Times and Washington Post. Both confirmed the existence of the laptop and of its contents that were reported by the N.Y. Post and Miranda Devine in her book "The Laptop From Hell". Who says files were added or deleted ? The FBI ? They have had their hands on it ever since it was turned over to them. The U.S. Attorney for Delaware ? Giuliani and his investigators downloaded the contents before the owner of the repair shop turned it over to the FBI. Nobody who examined the laptop or its contents ever said or implied that there were omissions or additions. None of the Bidens have ever claimed that. Dorsey now admits that suppressing the story and suspending the account of the N.Y. Post was a mistake.


You don't even know the most basic facts of this story. Giuliani and his investigators did not download the contents of the laptop. He was sent a copy of the hard drive by the computer repair person, Mac Isaac. Here's what Mac Isaac had to say about the content that's been released:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/



What Mac Isaac said next, though, is what was most noteworthy. When he did his “deep dive,” he said, he “saw a lot of photos” — but “did not see a lot of photos that are being reported to [have been] seen.”

“I do know that there have been multiple attempts over the past year-and-a-half to insert questionable material into the laptop as in, not physically, but passing off this misinformation or disinformation as coming from the laptop,” he said. “And that is a major concern of mine because I have fought tooth and nail to protect the integrity of this drive and to jeopardize that is going to mean that everything that I sacrificed will be for nothing.”

In other words, Mac Isaac says that he has seen claims about what the laptop contains that don’t actually reflect what he saw on the laptop at the outset. Or, presumably, sees now, as one of the few people that might still have an unlittered copy of its contents.


The Washington Post was sent a copy of the hard drive and had their experts look into it:

“The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years,” our report explained, with those we spoke with being unable to “reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer or could have been assembled from files from multiple computers and put on the portable drive.”

The NY Post's story has not been proven to be 100% correct or even close to it. Perhaps you think it was because you get your (mis)information from very biased, very dishonest sources, which only strengthens the case that Twitter did the right thing by blocking this misinformation.



Who is supposed to decide how much access Trump and Berenson get to social media ? Musk and 70% of Twitter users obviously think it should not be blatantly biased Twitter employees living in Silicon Valley.


Whoever owns the platform, and whoever this is, should monitor what's being posted and should not allow their platforms to be used for spreading lies or inciting violence.



Are you or anyone else seriously afraid that Musk will limit or control access of people that you like and agree with ? If not , then what are you worried about ? Clearly he intends to permit free and robust debate and that scares you why ? What is wrong with more voices being permitted to express more views ? Musk believes as I do that a truly free society permits and protects speech and expression that we do NOT like or agree with. For everyone from BLM and Anti-Fa on the left to the folks at National Review and MAGA hat wearers on the right. And everyone in between. And if there are some wingnuts on Twitter who go too far and actually incite violence or post truly dangerous disinformation we now have Biden's Ministry Of Truth to monitor them and refer them for further investigation and even prosecution as needed.

I'm not worried about anyone putting out facts on Twitter. I'm worried about Musk allowing users to use Twitter for spreading hate, inciting violence, and spreading misinformation. Once again you're repeating lies from the right-wing media. DHS established a board to counter misinformation from foreign countries, especially Russia, not American citizens. If you're truly interested in getting the facts, I strongly suggest you stop going to the right-wing media for (mis)information. They're extremely biased and dishonest.

Eric Stoner
05-04-2022, 08:56 AM
He repeatedly put out lies, falsely stating the election was stolen, and at the rally, he was clearly advocating violence. He told his rabid followers to "fight like hell or you're going to lose your country." The rioting on 1/6 would not have happened without Trump repeatedly lying about the election being stolen, not to mention his direct call to violence.

Berenson was wrong about practically everything on covid, and was putting out lies and misinformation about the vaccine.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/



You don't even know the most basic facts of this story. Giuliani and his investigators did not download the contents of the laptop. He was sent a copy of the hard drive by the computer repair person, Mac Isaac. Here's what Mac Isaac had to say about the content that's been released:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/



The Washington Post was sent a copy of the hard drive and had their experts look into it:

“The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years,” our report explained, with those we spoke with being unable to “reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer or could have been assembled from files from multiple computers and put on the portable drive.”

The NY Post's story has not been proven to be 100% correct or even close to it. Perhaps you think it was because you get your (mis)information from very biased, very dishonest sources, which only strengthens the case that Twitter did the right thing by blocking this misinformation.



Whoever owns the platform, and whoever this is, should monitor what's being posted and should not allow their platforms to be used for spreading lies or inciting violence.



I'm not worried about anyone putting out facts on Twitter. I'm worried about Musk allowing users to use Twitter for spreading hate, inciting violence, and spreading misinformation. Once again you're repeating lies from the right-wing media. DHS established a board to counter misinformation from foreign countries, especially Russia, not American citizens. If you're truly interested in getting the facts, I strongly suggest you stop going to the right-wing media for (mis)information. They're extremely biased and dishonest.

I must begin with a mea culpa. You were RIGHT about Berenson and I was ignorant of his half assed bullshit about Covid vaccines. Strangely, I have HEARD him on both T.V. and radio say that the vaccines are effective and that people should get vaccinated. Talking out of both sides of his ass ? I was honestly not aware of some of his more ridiculous , factually delinquent claims about vaccines e.g. that they initially lower immunity. That said he was correct that natural immunity is usually stronger and longer lasting than that conferred by vaccination. He was also right about SOME of Fauci's e-mails; that cloth masks are useless and that other types including N-95's provide limited to imperfect protection etc. We have discussed the mask issue in the Covid thread and I suggest we leave it there. I still think it is best to let him speak and bitch slap him with facts when and where it is warranted. He is not the sole source of Covid misinformation. Btw, what is the difference between MISinformation and DISinformation ? Both terms seem to be used interchangeably. I'm serious. If anyone knows please chime in. Maybe there isn't any . I don't know.

As for Hunter's laptop I was sloppy. You were RIGHT that Giuliani was given a COPY of the hard drive by Mac Isaac and did NOT download the files. That said, the Washington Post did NOT say that anything was added or deleted to Hunter's laptop. Mac Isaac did NOT say that anyone tried to physically insert anything . In fact, he made it a special point of emphasis. He DID say that there were claims of material being on the laptop that in fact were not there. I'm not sure but I think he is probably referring to claims by Giuliani ( The Ghoulish Fool or Foolish Ghoul ) that it contained "kiddie porn". So please cite any claims or reports by Miranda Devine and/or the N.Y. Post that were NOT true or accurate. Some of the laptop's contents were confirmed by Tony Bobulinski. There is also grand jury testimony from Hunter's ex-wife and the former stripper who gave birth to his child. The one he tried to avoid paying child support to.

I did not ask you about "putting out facts on Twitter ". I asked you whether you were afraid that Musk would suppress speakers and ideas that you like and agree with ? Musk has never said that he would permit hate speech or inciting violence. That leaves "misinformation" which is heavily dependent on its definition. One person's misinformation is another's truth.

The right wing media , on balance , is no more biased or factually delinquent than CNN, MSNBC , the Washington Post , N.Y. Times etc. For every Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson there is a Joy Reid , Brian Stelter or Rachel "Madcow". Paul Krugman has gone to new lows in intellectual dishonesty and some of what Joy Behar says is insane. So what ? They all have a right to speak afaic and I see no need to "protect" anyone from their bilge and bullshit.

Eric Stoner
05-04-2022, 09:07 AM
If Elon gets it he has publicly stated that “laws” will be the basis for moderation. Now whose laws? This is an international platform. Many other countries have free speech as a right, just with differing interpretations. According to the one person I have ever heard say this, the United States Constitution (a government document once again) gives “natural” special rights somehow, so Twitter will probably based on US government’s interpretation of free speech. If he somehow decides to allow all the vile racist scum to spew based on some standard of his own he will find that people just don’t want to exist in that environment and he will suffer. This has happened on all the conservative apps where they claimed hands off moderation till their feeds were filled with images of actual shit and nazi symbols.

Eric in all your imaginary hand wringing over being censored for your opinions online have you ever thought of those actually sent to jail for their free speech. What opinions do they try to express? Sedition act of 1918? The things Eugene Debs said in his speech is common place not just on Twitter/social media but also certain newspapers/books. Though the actual sedition act was repelled it is tied to the espionage act which still stands and does punish whistleblowers to this day. Reminder we have been at war constantly since then. There are real actual battles in free speech, not being able to flood social media with lying propaganda is not one of them.

If you are referring to me then you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said about "natural " rights and the U.S. Constitution. Natural rights exist naturally. They are NOT given to anyone. Not by government or any Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was designed and written to set up a government. One of the purposes of that government is to secure and protect those basic rights. The Bill Of Rights is a list of " thou shalt nots " addressed to the Federal Government. NO laws abridging freedom of speech ; no cruel and unusual punishments or excessive fines ; no double jeopardy etc. It also contains guarantees of various rights like trial by jury. The 9th Amendment clearly says that the listing of certain rights in the preceding 8 Amendments does not mean that the people do not have other rights not specifically listed. Like a right to privacy. One reason I opposed Bork's nomination to the SCOTUS is that he claimed the 9th Amendment was an "ink blot" and that nobody knew what it meant. It seems pretty clearly written to me. But I digress.

kamiliam
05-04-2022, 10:05 AM
If you are referring to me then you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said about "natural " rights and the U.S. Constitution. Natural rights exist naturally. They are NOT given to anyone. Not by government or any Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was designed and written to set up a government. One of the purposes of that government is to secure and protect those basic rights. The Bill Of Rights is a list of " thou shalt nots " addressed to the Federal Government. NO laws abridging freedom of speech ; no cruel and unusual punishments or excessive fines ; no double jeopardy etc. It also contains guarantees of various rights like trial by jury. The 9th Amendment clearly says that the listing of certain rights in the preceding 8 Amendments does not mean that the people do not have other rights not specifically listed. Like a right to privacy. One reason I opposed Bork's nomination to the SCOTUS is that he claimed the 9th Amendment was an "ink blot" and that nobody knew what it meant. It seems pretty clearly written to me. But I digress.

I’m not really down with your interpretation of the constitution, see the roe thread. You were arguing free speech is a natural right. Locke referred to the natural rights as life, liberty, and property. You continue to not examine how if the foundational documents (only thing you care about) state that the government is in charge of protecting free speech, it is them is then that guides it. You want the government to be destroyed so bad that you have given god like status to the founders who were just guys apart of their time.

Eric Stoner
05-04-2022, 10:35 AM
I’m not really down with your interpretation of the constitution, see the roe thread. You were arguing free speech is a natural right. Locke referred to the natural rights as life, liberty, and property. You continue to not examine how if the foundational documents (only thing you care about) state that the government is in charge of protecting free speech, it is them is then that guides it. You want the government to be destroyed so bad that you have given god like status to the founders who were just guys apart of their time.

WHAT ? When have I EVER advocated "destroying " our government ?

Locke is NOT the only source of the concept of "natural rights ". There is also Rousseau, Burke and even Hobbes. Just to name three.

A brilliant and extensive discussion of natural rights vis a vis the U.S. Constitution is laid out by George Will in his recent book "A Conservative Sensibility ".

I am sorry but the syntax of your sentence beginning : " You continue to not examine ... " has thrown me totally off. What are you trying to say ?

kamiliam
05-04-2022, 11:06 AM
WHAT ? When have I EVER advocated "destroying " our government ?

Locke is NOT the only source of the concept of "natural rights ". There is also Rousseau, Burke and even Hobbes. Just to name three.

A brilliant and extensive discussion of natural rights vis a vis the U.S. Constitution is laid out by George Will in his recent book "A Conservative Sensibility ".

I am sorry but the syntax of your sentence beginning : " You continue to not examine ... " has thrown me totally off. What are you trying to say ?


We could have a book club! I’ll read that and you could try out Mary Anne Frank’s The Cult of the Constitution. Maybe once we do that we we understand each other’s immense political differences.

dpacrkk
05-04-2022, 11:32 AM
One person's misinformation is another's truth.

That other person is an idiot then.

Now you're going to post something to the effect of "Like it or not, there are a lot of people that feel this way. Let them decide what's right or you're takin' muh freedomz!"

Then I'll reply "And they'd be idiots too because that's not how science works."


We could have a book club!

Let's be honest, he's not reading anything. His views are regurgitated from talking heads of a certain party that appeal to people's emotions by preying on their fear that their freedoms are continually under attack.

Eric Stoner
05-04-2022, 12:00 PM
We could have a book club! I’ll read that and you could try out Mary Anne Frank’s The Cult of the Constitution. Maybe once we do that we we understand each other’s immense political differences.

I have read excerpts from her book and was not impressed. Poorly researched. Heavily slanted . Reminded me of the 1619 so called "scholarship". Constitutionalists and strict constructionists are not part of a cult. Respect for the constitution is not akin to religious belief. For instance she wants to rewrite the 1st and 2nd Amendments to name just one of her ideas.

She doesn't like Constructionism because our Constitution was written exclusively by white men living in 1787. Many of whom owned slaves. No women , blacks or poor folk were consulted. She claims it was written by and for the ruling elite. Ignoring among other things all the Amendments we have had since.

eagle2
05-04-2022, 02:32 PM
I must begin with a mea culpa. You were RIGHT about Berenson and I was ignorant of his half assed bullshit about Covid vaccines. Strangely, I have HEARD him on both T.V. and radio say that the vaccines are effective and that people should get vaccinated. Talking out of both sides of his ass ? I was honestly not aware of some of his more ridiculous , factually delinquent claims about vaccines e.g. that they initially lower immunity. That said he was correct that natural immunity is usually stronger and longer lasting than that conferred by vaccination. He was also right about SOME of Fauci's e-mails; that cloth masks are useless and that other types including N-95's provide limited to imperfect protection etc. We have discussed the mask issue in the Covid thread and I suggest we leave it there. I still think it is best to let him speak and bitch slap him with facts when and where it is warranted. He is not the sole source of Covid misinformation. Btw, what is the difference between MISinformation and DISinformation ? Both terms seem to be used interchangeably. I'm serious. If anyone knows please chime in. Maybe there isn't any . I don't know.


I see nothing wrong with owners of private platforms refusing to allow their platforms to be used for spreading falsehoods. There's a significant percentage of Americans who are not going to be swayed by facts or evidence. As I mentioned before, the majority of Republicans believe Trump was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election, and that Biden stole the election through voter and election fraud. No amount of facts or evidence will convince these people that they're wrong. The same with covid vaccines. The less falsehoods there are on the internet, the better.

According to Wikipedia, misinformation is unintentionally putting out false information. Disinformation is when false information is intentionally put out.



As for Hunter's laptop I was sloppy. You were RIGHT that Giuliani was given a COPY of the hard drive by Mac Isaac and did NOT download the files. That said, the Washington Post did NOT say that anything was added or deleted to Hunter's laptop. Mac Isaac did NOT say that anyone tried to physically insert anything . In fact, he made it a special point of emphasis. He DID say that there were claims of material being on the laptop that in fact were not there. I'm not sure but I think he is probably referring to claims by Giuliani ( The Ghoulish Fool or Foolish Ghoul ) that it contained "kiddie porn". So please cite any claims or reports by Miranda Devine and/or the N.Y. Post that were NOT true or accurate. Some of the laptop's contents were confirmed by Tony Bobulinski. There is also grand jury testimony from Hunter's ex-wife and the former stripper who gave birth to his child. The one he tried to avoid paying child support to.


It's not a matter of any of the claims or reports being not true or accurate. It's a matter of whether or not the claims could be authenticated. If they can't be authenticated, there is no way to know whether or not what was reported is true. According to the experts hired by the Washington Post who examined the data, only a small fraction of what was on the drive could be authenticated.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-04-02/how-analyzed-hunter-biden-laptop-5559736.html



The verifiable emails are a small fraction of 217 gigabytes of data provided to The Post on a portable hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey. He said the contents of the portable drive originated from Biden’s MacBook Pro, which Biden reportedly dropped off at a computer repair shop in Wilmington, Del., in April 2019 and never reclaimed.

The vast majority of the data - and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained - could not be verified by either of the two security experts who reviewed the data for The Post. Neither found clear evidence of tampering in their examinations, but some of the records that might have helped verify contents were not available for analysis, they said. The Post was able in some instances to find documents from other sources that matched content on the laptop that the experts were not able to assess.

Among the reasons for the inconclusive findings was sloppy handling of the data, which damaged some records. The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Biden over nearly three years. The MacBook itself is now in the hands of the FBI, which is investigating whether Biden properly reported income from business dealings.

Most of the data obtained by The Post lacks cryptographic features that would help experts make a reliable determination of authenticity, especially in a case where the original computer and its hard drive are not available for forensic examination. Other factors, such as emails that were only partially downloaded, also stymied the security experts’ efforts to verify content.


Responsible journalists do not print stories that cannot be authenticated. When the NY Post first printed the story, they wouldn't even provide the data to anyone else to examine, which is why no major outlets reported on the story.



I did not ask you about "putting out facts on Twitter ". I asked you whether you were afraid that Musk would suppress speakers and ideas that you like and agree with ? Musk has never said that he would permit hate speech or inciting violence. That leaves "misinformation" which is heavily dependent on its definition. One person's misinformation is another's truth.


No. Again, I'm concerned that he may allow his platform to be used to spread lies and incite violence. I believe Musk said he would allow anything to be posted on Twitter, that is not against the law. That means that Twitter can be used to promote hate, racism, lies, etc..



The right wing media , on balance , is no more biased or factually delinquent than CNN, MSNBC , the Washington Post , N.Y. Times etc. For every Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson there is a Joy Reid , Brian Stelter or Rachel "Madcow". Paul Krugman has gone to new lows in intellectual dishonesty and some of what Joy Behar says is insane. So what ? They all have a right to speak afaic and I see no need to "protect" anyone from their bilge and bullshit.

Yes they are. There's no comparison between the two. It's well documented that Fox News lies on the air repeatedly. They were constantly lying about election and voter fraud on the air, and were forced to go on the air and publicly admit they lied on multiple programs. There is also currently a billion dollar lawsuit against them, for their election lies. They repeatedly lied about the Seth Rich murder, and paid out a multi-million dollar settlement to his family, to compensate them for the lies they told about his murder. Fox News commentators have regularly lied about the covid vaccines. Fox News has mandated that their employees get vaccinated for covid, while at the same time their commentators go on the air questioning the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. During the 1/6 rioting, Fox News commentators were saying one thing on the air and something very different in private. Their texts have been made public, and while they were texting Mark Meadows to get Trump to tell his supporters to go home, on the air they were blaming Antifa for the rioting. Alex Jones recently lost a $100 million lawsuit for lying about the Sandy Hook shooting, and calling it a "false flag operation."

Rachel Maddow has never been successfully sued for defamation. I don't think anyone on MSNBC news has. OAN sued Rachel Maddow once, and lost, and was forced to pay her legal fees.

Another way to compare the right-wing media to the liberal media is to look at the death rates from covid-19. Most Trump voters get their information from right-wing sources. Most Biden voters don't. In counties where Trump got 90% of the vote or more, the death rate from covid-19 was approximately 10 times higher than the death rate in counties where Trump got less than 10% of the vote. This is what the disinformation from the right-wing media does, and this is why social media platforms should do as much as they can't to prevent their platforms from being used to spread lies and falsehoods. It's not just matter of hurting people's feelings. These lies are killing people.

Eric Stoner
05-05-2022, 09:48 AM
I see nothing wrong with owners of private platforms refusing to allow their platforms to be used for spreading falsehoods. There's a significant percentage of Americans who are not going to be swayed by facts or evidence. As I mentioned before, the majority of Republicans believe Trump was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election, and that Biden stole the election through voter and election fraud. No amount of facts or evidence will convince these people that they're wrong. The same with covid vaccines. The less falsehoods there are on the internet, the better.

According to Wikipedia, misinformation is unintentionally putting out false information. Disinformation is when false information is intentionally put out.



It's not a matter of any of the claims or reports being not true or accurate. It's a matter of whether or not the claims could be authenticated. If they can't be authenticated, there is no way to know whether or not what was reported is true. According to the experts hired by the Washington Post who examined the data, only a small fraction of what was on the drive could be authenticated.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-04-02/how-analyzed-hunter-biden-laptop-5559736.html



Responsible journalists do not print stories that cannot be authenticated. When the NY Post first printed the story, they wouldn't even provide the data to anyone else to examine, which is why no major outlets reported on the story.



No. Again, I'm concerned that he may allow his platform to be used to spread lies and incite violence. I believe Musk said he would allow anything to be posted on Twitter, that is not against the law. That means that Twitter can be used to promote hate, racism, lies, etc..



Yes they are. There's no comparison between the two. It's well documented that Fox News lies on the air repeatedly. They were constantly lying about election and voter fraud on the air, and were forced to go on the air and publicly admit they lied on multiple programs. There is also currently a billion dollar lawsuit against them, for their election lies. They repeatedly lied about the Seth Rich murder, and paid out a multi-million dollar settlement to his family, to compensate them for the lies they told about his murder. Fox News commentators have regularly lied about the covid vaccines. Fox News has mandated that their employees get vaccinated for covid, while at the same time their commentators go on the air questioning the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. During the 1/6 rioting, Fox News commentators were saying one thing on the air and something very different in private. Their texts have been made public, and while they were texting Mark Meadows to get Trump to tell his supporters to go home, on the air they were blaming Antifa for the rioting. Alex Jones recently lost a $100 million lawsuit for lying about the Sandy Hook shooting, and calling it a "false flag operation."

Rachel Maddow has never been successfully sued for defamation. I don't think anyone on MSNBC news has. OAN sued Rachel Maddow once, and lost, and was forced to pay her legal fees.

Another way to compare the right-wing media to the liberal media is to look at the death rates from covid-19. Most Trump voters get their information from right-wing sources. Most Biden voters don't. In counties where Trump got 90% of the vote or more, the death rate from covid-19 was approximately 10 times higher than the death rate in counties where Trump got less than 10% of the vote. This is what the disinformation from the right-wing media does, and this is why social media platforms should do as much as they can't to prevent their platforms from being used to spread lies and falsehoods. It's not just matter of hurting people's feelings. These lies are killing people.

Nor do I if that is what they want to do. The issue is WHO decides what is "true" or "false" and how much politics comes into play in making those decisions.

Thank you for clarifying "Mis" vs. "Dis". Appreciated.

The N.Y. Post and Devine published some of Hunter's e-mails. They came from his lap-top. Hunter never denied the lap-top was his or that he wrote and received the e-mails in question. The Post had a scoop and did not want to share it with their competition. Did Politico share their SCOTUS leak with any other outlet ? The WAPO experts found ZERO evidence of tampering . The N.Y. Post and Devine found "documents from other sources " matching the contents of Hunter's laptop. Maybe you should READ Devine's book FIRST and then opine.

If only liberal journalists adhered to the Eagle Standard of authentication . The N.Y. Times and Washington Post did NOT authenticate the "Steele Dossier" . It did not stop them from publishing it and the "Russia, Russia , Russia" hoax that was almost totally debunked by the Mueller Report. And the N.Y. Times did not give back its Pulitzer Prize.

The liberal media does not have a monopoly on journalistic virtue. Far from it. CNN and NBC both paid MILLIONS to Nick Sandman. Rachel Madcow was named as a defendant. Sharyn Alfonsi's hit piece on "60 Minutes " about DeSantis and Publix distributing Covid vaccine was totally discredited by local DEMOCRATS. Her editing was shown to be shockingly slanted and incomplete. Just to name three recent and prominent examples. There are plenty of others.

eagle2
05-05-2022, 02:08 PM
The N.Y. Post and Devine published some of Hunter's e-mails. They came from his lap-top. Hunter never denied the lap-top was his or that he wrote and received the e-mails in question. The Post had a scoop and did not want to share it with their competition. Did Politico share their SCOTUS leak with any other outlet ? The WAPO experts found ZERO evidence of tampering . The N.Y. Post and Devine found "documents from other sources " matching the contents of Hunter's laptop. Maybe you should READ Devine's book FIRST and then opine.


No, the NY Post published emails from a hard drive they were provided with, not Hunter's laptop. The hard drive they were provided with had been tampered with, and much of what was on it was not authenticated.

There is no reason for the NY Post to not allow others to examine their drive, once they published their story. The Washington Post did find evidence of tampering. There is no reason to read Devine's book, if the information she was basing it on was questionable or was not authenticated.

From:
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-04-02/how-analyzed-hunter-biden-laptop-5559736.html



In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI.


That means the hard drive had been tampered with. I don't think they could have made it any clearer.



If only liberal journalists adhered to the Eagle Standard of authentication . The N.Y. Times and Washington Post did NOT authenticate the "Steele Dossier" . It did not stop them from publishing it and the "Russia, Russia , Russia" hoax that was almost totally debunked by the Mueller Report. And the N.Y. Times did not give back its Pulitzer Prize.


"Russia, Russia, Russia" was not a hoax. You're just repeating disinformation from right-wing conspiracy theory websites.



The liberal media does not have a monopoly on journalistic virtue. Far from it. CNN and NBC both paid MILLIONS to Nick Sandman. Rachel Madcow was named as a defendant. Sharyn Alfonsi's hit piece on "60 Minutes " about DeSantis and Publix distributing Covid vaccine was totally discredited by local DEMOCRATS. Her editing was shown to be shockingly slanted and incomplete. Just to name three recent and prominent examples. There are plenty of others.

The media didn't intentionally lie about Sandman. They reported without having all the facts, which is irresponsible, but not the same as intentionally lying. 60 minutes reported what was told to them in interviews with dozens of sources. They offered DeSantis the chance to be interviewed for the story, but he declined.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/60-minutes-stands-by-controversial-desantis-publix-report-says-it-speaks-for-itself

Fox News intentionally lies on the air.

eagle2
05-08-2022, 09:09 PM
Eric,

You're about the last person in the world to be in a position to criticize anyone for controlling speech. You want to throw a person or people in jail for making public, a Supreme Court decision that will cause harm to millions of women. I've never come across such hypocrisy. You're bashing the press and social media sites for not making public, the content on a private citizen's personal laptop, that hasn't been fully verified or authenticated, but you want to throw people in jail for making public, a public official's (Supreme Court justice) writing in regard to a court case that will result in American women losing one of their most basic rights.

Eric Stoner
05-09-2022, 08:43 AM
Eric,

You're about the last person in the world to be in a position to criticize anyone for controlling speech. You want to throw a person or people in jail for making public, a Supreme Court decision that will cause harm to millions of women. I've never come across such hypocrisy. You're bashing the press and social media sites for not making public, the content on a private citizen's personal laptop, that hasn't been fully verified or authenticated, but you want to throw people in jail for making public, a public official's (Supreme Court justice) writing in regard to a court case that will result in American women losing one of their most basic rights.

I would have preferred to respond to your misinformation and mischaracterization on this particular issue in the SCOTUS thread but our Moderator closed it. I am sorry but you are way off base on these issues.

First, Sandy Berger pled guilty to a crime. Afaic he should have gotten prison time. He was fined $50,000, had to do 100 hours of community service , pay $6,905 in administrative costs and serve two years of probation.

Whoever leaked the DRAFT decision had no right to do so. It was an act of civil disobedience. Part of civil disobedience ( i.e. disobeying a law one believes to be unjust or breaking the law for a higher purpose ) is a willingness to accept the consequences. MLK , Jr. and other Civil Rights protesters and Anti-War protesters were willing to go to jail as were Gandhi and Thoreau. Whether you like it or not , whether you agree with what the leaker did, the fact remains that what they did was illegal and unethical. In the SCOTUS thread I cited to the Federal statutes that were violated plus the rules of the Supreme Court that have been in existence for over century. Clearly, the leak was designed to pressure the Justices. In less than an hour after the leak was published there were Pro-Choice demonstrators out in force with pre-made signs. Nina Totenberg ( The longtime NPR reporter and SCOTUS "expert") either forgot or didn't want to remember that when she said the leak most likely came from a CONSERVATIVE Justice to try and pressure Roberts to join in the opinion.

There was no breach of ethics or confidentiality surrounding Hunter's laptop. After Hunter abandoned it and didn't pay his bill it became Mac Isaac's property.

There is no comparison between what the leaker did and people opining on Twitter and Facebook. NONE ! Unless of course someone tweets classified or confidential information. There is a reason why Supreme Court conferences are CLOSED. Only the Justices attend. Nobody else. The most junior Justice takes the notes of their discussion. In this case that would be Amy Coney Barrett. What they say is totally and completely confidential. The word confidential is sacrosanct in legal and judicial circles. Violation is both illegal and grounds for disbarment. There are statutes in both Maryland and Virginia that may have been violated by the leak. That draft opinion was a FIRST draft and was totally confidential. The protests engendered by its release are more likely to cause the justices to dig in their heels as opposed to being amenable to compromise. So not only was it illegal and unethical but it is likely to be unwise and counterproductive. We will see.

I am awaiting our moderator's decision on whether to reopen the thread and hope that is what happens because there are a lot of things I did not know about abortion that I do now. Just as a teaser because I don't want to go too far and violate the spirit of the closing of the thread : The U.S. is far more liberal on the issue than all but two European nations. Except for Sweden and The Netherlands all the other EU countries are far more restrictive than the U.S. Most do not permit abortion beyond the First Trimester. Israel requires that a committee rule and give permission for an abortion. Which is liberally granted. Japan is far more restrictive than the U.S.( A great source for further reading is reproductiverights.org put up by The Center For Reproductive Rights. ) A very few European countries like Malta and Poland are highly restrictive. I also did not know that most Pro-Lifers are women.

The U.S. is one of only 7 countries that permits non-therapeutic or elective abortion on demand after 20 weeks. So much for restrictions being the sole province of "religious fanatics".

dpacrkk
05-09-2022, 08:52 AM
Part of civil disobedience ( i.e. disobeying a law one believes to be unjust or breaking the law for a higher purpose ) is a willingness to accept the consequences. MLK , Jr. and other Civil Rights protesters and Anti-War protesters were willing to go to jail as were Gandhi and Thoreau. Whether you like it or not , whether you agree with what the leaker did, the fact remains that what they did was illegal and unethical.

Part of posting misinformation ( i.e. parroting talking heads' poorly sourced and blatantly incorrect claims ) is a willingness to accept the consequences. Trump, and others were should be willing to get banned. Whether you like it or not , whether you agree with what Twitter did, the fact remains that what they did was against Twitter's terms of service.

On a serious note: Can you really not see how easily you rationalize behavior when it's people you like?

Insert obligatory "demented boomer" reference.

Eric Stoner
05-09-2022, 09:05 AM
No, the NY Post published emails from a hard drive they were provided with, not Hunter's laptop. The hard drive they were provided with had been tampered with, and much of what was on it was not authenticated.

There is no reason for the NY Post to not allow others to examine their drive, once they published their story. The Washington Post did find evidence of tampering. There is no reason to read Devine's book, if the information she was basing it on was questionable or was not authenticated.

From:
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-04-02/how-analyzed-hunter-biden-laptop-5559736.html



That means the hard drive had been tampered with. I don't think they could have made it any clearer.



"Russia, Russia, Russia" was not a hoax. You're just repeating disinformation from right-wing conspiracy theory websites.



The media didn't intentionally lie about Sandman. They reported without having all the facts, which is irresponsible, but not the same as intentionally lying. 60 minutes reported what was told to them in interviews with dozens of sources. They offered DeSantis the chance to be interviewed for the story, but he declined.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/60-minutes-stands-by-controversial-desantis-publix-report-says-it-speaks-for-itself

Fox News intentionally lies on the air.

You obviously did not READ your Daily Beast link. It was quite critical of Ms. Alfansi and "60 MInutes". The same program that back in 2004 let Dan Rather and his producer, Mary Mapes try to pass off phony documents that their own handwriting and document expert refused to AUTHENTICATE and raised serious questions about. Both Rather and Mapes ignored everyone and everything telling them the documents were faked. But I digress. Your link , the one YOU posted said there was NO evidence of any link between Publix contributing to the DeSantis campaign and their VOLUNTEERING to provide vaccinations.

"60 Minutes" edited DeSantis' response to ALFANSI's question at a news conference. If you bothered to watch and listen to his full response and compare it to the edited "60 Minutes " version you would have seen and heard him blow her doors off. On April 7, 2021, the Washington Post called the report misleading. CNN echoed the Daily Beast by noting that "60 Minutes" never offered any evidence of anything remotely resembling "pay for play ".Jared Moskowitz and Dave Kerner ( both local Democrat officials ) both said that DeSantis never suggested partnering with Publix. It was suggested TO him ; NOT by him. Many news outlets compared the full DeSantis response to the edited "60 Minutes" version. ALL have said the edited version was incomplete and misleading. Politifacts called it "deceptive editing". So did National Review , Fox News, Axios, Newsweek, The Washington Times and Washington Examiner. Even the major Florida newspapers that love to criticize DeSantis for anything and everything like The Miami Herald , Tampa Times, Palm Beach Journal and Sun Sentinel all agreed that the " 60 Minutes" report was incomplete and unfair. I could not find a single reputable news outlet that defended the "60 Minutes" report.

So far, Nick Sandman has settled with CNN, NBC and The Washington Post. Lin Wood , his former attorney said Madcow would be a defendant but apparently never got around to formally naming her before settling with NBC. His suit against Ana Navarro of CNN presumably settled but his suits against Maggie Haberman of the N.Y. Times, the Times itself , Rolling Stone, ABC and CBS are still ongoing.

Not a single one of Hunter's e-mails have been shown in any way to have been doctored or to be inauthentic. The e-mails published by the N.Y. Post and by Miranda Devine in her book were AUTHENTICATED by the N.Y. Times and The Washington Post. Regardless of whether or not his computer and /or hard drive were pristine, the e-mails themselves were shown to be authentic. Best of all , neither Hunter nor Joe have ever denied their contents. The E-MAILS Eagle ; the PUBLISHED E-Mails. Not the entire contents of the hard drive. Most of which probably have nothing to do with Hunter's business dealings anyway. Hunter may have been a "private citizen" but there is a LOT of evidence that he used his father's position as VEEP to make deals. And also evidence that Joe lied when he said he knew nothing about Hunter's business dealings. If his name was Eric Trump the press would be all over the story and you know it.

Btw, where did the Washington Post and New York Times get their hard drives to examine ? Your own links ; the ones YOU posted say that nothing new was inserted. There is no evidence , zip, zero , nada , that a single e-mail was fabricated or adulterated in any way, shape or form. NONE ! All you have are unfounded suspicions that something could have happened. What ? By whom ? How ? When ? Read Devine's book ( and Mac Isaac's book and lawsuit ) and then opine about possible tampering and authentication issues. Book publishers do a lot of fact checking and vetting before a book is published. In a past life one of my first jobs was to vet various publications for anything potentially libelous and highlight it for further discussion and inquiry by the poobahs I worked for. EVERYTHING potentially libelous had to be backed up by authenticated facts and sources. To date, nobody has suggested that there is anything in Devine's book that is libelous. To be actionable the author has to know it was untrue or have acted with disregard for the truth. Please point to a single thing in her book that meets that standard.

When was The Steele dossier "authenticated " ? By whom ? Adam Schiff ? lol. The Mueller Report poked numerous gaping holes into the "Russia " hoax. There was no evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia. There were improperly obtained FISA warrants. There were rogue FBI agents violating the law to try and get Trump. Durham is still investigating the whole mess. We will see. Likewise Hunter's affairs are being investigated by the U.S. Attorney for Delaware. We will see.

Eric Stoner
05-09-2022, 09:58 AM
Part of posting misinformation ( i.e. parroting talking heads' poorly sourced and blatantly incorrect claims ) is a willingness to accept the consequences. Trump, and others were should be willing to get banned. Whether you like it or not , whether you agree with what Twitter did, the fact remains that what they did was against Twitter's terms of service.

On a serious note: Can you really not see how easily you rationalize behavior when it's people you like?

Insert obligatory "demented boomer" reference.

I am NOT rationalizing anything Trump said or did.

Musk has said he will not permit anything illegal. Kiddie porn , clear incitement of violence creating an immediate threat and libel are already against the law. He and I agree that identifying misinformation and disinformation are partly the responsibility of the READER. I do not need Twitter to protect me from falsehoods and neither do you. Nor does Eagle. Just as we cannot germ proof the world to protect ourselves from Covid and other pathogens we can't eliminate lies and liars . Of all political types. I agree with Bill Maher that people have a right: " ... to lie , to be wrong and even be an asshole. " It is not a perfect world.

Most people polled do not care that Musk is taking over Twitter. According to Eagle that puts them at deadly risk of being stupid, stubborn or just plain ignorant. According to him we COULD ban all religious postings from all platforms. Faith based belief can't be proven and lacks evidence to support it. Does posting it constitute disinformation or misinformation ? Every media outlet I can think of has published at least some misinformation and even disinformation. The N.Y. Times has admitted that they practice advocacy journalism. Knowing that I also know to keep the salt shaker handy every time I read their stuff.

dpacrkk
05-09-2022, 10:47 AM
He and I agree that identifying misinformation and disinformation are partly the responsibility of the READER. I do not need Twitter to protect me from falsehoods and neither do you.

Anyway, you missed the point yet again. You lecture us about taking responsibility, but it's simultaneously a grave injustice when someone gets banned from a private (virtual) property instead of take responsibility for breaching that private property owner's terms of service.

When it's someone you like, that person should be allowed to do anything they want without facing the consequences. When it's someone you don't like, they must face the full (and completely hypothetical) consequences.

In the duration of one thread, you literally went from telling us that these consequences are censorship to telling us that people should have the "willingness to accept the consequences."

Boom! That's three ways of explaining the same concept in one thread. But you probably still won't understand this because you'll continue rationalizing it with "But Twitter is widely used so everyone should have access to it!" or some other conservative garbage yet be simultaneously against confiscation of private property and other forms of authoritarianism. Just admit it: you don't support freedom for everyone at all.

Insert obligatory "hypocritical boomer" reference.


According to Eagle that puts them at deadly risk of being stupid, stubborn or just plain ignorant.

This is a reductive misrepresentation of what he typed.

Eric Stoner
05-09-2022, 11:51 AM
Anyway, you missed the point yet again. You lecture us about taking responsibility, but it's simultaneously a grave injustice when someone gets banned from a private (virtual) property instead of take responsibility for breaching that private property owner's terms of service.

When it's someone you like, that person should be allowed to do anything they want without facing the consequences. When it's someone you don't like, they must face the full (and completely hypothetical) consequences.

In the duration of one thread, you literally went from telling us that these consequences are censorship to telling us that people should have the "willingness to accept the consequences."

Boom! That's three ways of explaining the same concept in one thread. But you probably still won't understand this because you'll continue rationalizing it with "But Twitter is widely used so everyone should have access to it!" or some other conservative garbage yet be simultaneously against confiscation of private property and other forms of authoritarianism. Just admit it: you don't support freedom for everyone at all.

Insert obligatory "hypocritical boomer" reference.



This is a reductive misrepresentation of what he typed.

OK. Yeah. I had a little fun with what Eagle said and got a bit supercilious. He did not say that. I can make an argument that it logically flows from SOME of what he has posted but it is over the top.

But as far as the "rules" - what were they ? And were they evenly applied ? I am talking now just about Twitter users. I put the leaker in a totally different category and reject any attempted equivalence.

eagle2
05-09-2022, 12:15 PM
Whoever leaked the DRAFT decision had no right to do so. It was an act of civil disobedience. Part of civil disobedience ( i.e. disobeying a law one believes to be unjust or breaking the law for a higher purpose ) is a willingness to accept the consequences.

What law was broken by leaking the DRAFT? A Supreme Court justice's DRAFT is not classified information.

slowpoke
05-09-2022, 12:34 PM
The term "consequence" has come to be used to mean punishment, retaliation or revenge.

eagle2
05-09-2022, 01:05 PM
I am NOT rationalizing anything Trump said or did.

Musk has said he will not permit anything illegal. Kiddie porn , clear incitement of violence creating an immediate threat and libel are already against the law. He and I agree that identifying misinformation and disinformation are partly the responsibility of the READER. I do not need Twitter to protect me from falsehoods and neither do you. Nor does Eagle.

You still don't get the point. I don't need Twitter to protect me from falsehoods. We do need to protect ourselves from the morons who believe the falsehoods. That includes doing as much as can be done to prevent these morons from seeing the falsehoods in the first place. How many lives should be put at risk, for Twitter to allow nonsensical lies about Democrats running pedophile rings? Why are you in favor of Twitter allowing their platform to be used to spread lies, but you're not okay with someone making public, the truth about what is going on with the Supreme Court?

dpacrkk
05-09-2022, 01:26 PM
But as far as the "rules" - what were they ? And were they evenly applied ? I am talking now just about Twitter users. I put the leaker in a totally different category and reject any attempted equivalence.

You've tried this defense of "but other people do it too!" before. You cannot seriously be this obtuse, so you are obviously being intentionally dishonest with yourself. Honestly just ask yourself these questions and admit it's not about freedom, it's about your outrage that something didn't work out for once in your life.


Do you think others' bad behavior absolves everyone else?
Did it occur to you that those other culprits just didn't get caught?
Did you consider that your problem might not be "but muh freedomz, don't tread on me!" and could just be that these social networks might be biased?


And if you're trying to find a double standard or something, then I responded many times, including here (https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?229894-Rioters-storm-Capital-Building-in-DC/page10&p=3206009#post3206009) and here (https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?229256-Twitter-and-Facebook-Controlling-Speech&p=3211595&viewfull=1#post3211595) shortly after that, you demented boomer. Note that one of those posts also showed when Twitter showed bias in favor conservatives as well.

eagle2
05-09-2022, 02:08 PM
There is no comparison between what the leaker did and people opining on Twitter and Facebook. NONE ! Unless of course someone tweets classified or confidential information. There is a reason why Supreme Court conferences are CLOSED. Only the Justices attend. Nobody else. The most junior Justice takes the notes of their discussion. In this case that would be Amy Coney Barrett. What they say is totally and completely confidential. The word confidential is sacrosanct in legal and judicial circles. Violation is both illegal and grounds for disbarment. There are statutes in both Maryland and Virginia that may have been violated by the leak. That draft opinion was a FIRST draft and was totally confidential. The protests engendered by its release are more likely to cause the justices to dig in their heels as opposed to being amenable to compromise. So not only was it illegal and unethical but it is likely to be unwise and counterproductive. We will see.


Right. There is no comparison, because what is being prohibited on Twitter and Facebook are lies and misinformation. The justices' decision isn't. Whether or not it's legal isn't relevant, because there is no question that Twitter and Facebook have the legal right to censor what is posted on their platform, yet you're saying they should not be allowed to do it. Basically, you're saying, Twitter and Facebook should not be allowed to censor what is posted on their platform, but the Supreme Court should be allowed to censor what is made public. You're either for censorship or you're not. In your case, you clearly are. You not only want to censor what is allowed to be made public. You want to throw people in jail for doing so. That is far, far worse than anything Twitter or Facebook has ever done. It's so blatantly obvious that you want speech you agree with to be allowed anytime anywhere, including on private platforms, regardless of what the owners of these platforms want, but you want speech you disagree with to be banned, and anyone who violates your ban, to be thrown in jail. I don't understand how you can't see this hypocrisy.

eagle2
05-09-2022, 02:11 PM
When was The Steele dossier "authenticated " ? By whom ? Adam Schiff ? lol. The Mueller Report poked numerous gaping holes into the "Russia " hoax. There was no evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia. There were improperly obtained FISA warrants. There were rogue FBI agents violating the law to try and get Trump. Durham is still investigating the whole mess. We will see. Likewise Hunter's affairs are being investigated by the U.S. Attorney for Delaware. We will see.

All you're doing is repeating lies by Trump and his sycophants. There's plenty of evidence of collusion.

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/



Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where Trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”

Eric Stoner
05-10-2022, 07:28 AM
Part of posting misinformation ( i.e. parroting talking heads' poorly sourced and blatantly incorrect claims ) is a willingness to accept the consequences. Trump, and others were should be willing to get banned. Whether you like it or not , whether you agree with what Twitter did, the fact remains that what they did was against Twitter's terms of service.

On a serious note: Can you really not see how easily you rationalize behavior when it's people you like?

Insert obligatory "demented boomer" reference.

I don't mind your name calling. It's OK with me if the Moderator leaves it up. Afaic it says everything about your inability to engage in civil discourse without need to emotionally vent.

dpacrkk
05-10-2022, 07:48 AM
I don't mind your name calling. It's OK with me if the Moderator leaves it up. Afaic it says everything about your inability to engage in civil discourse without need to emotionally vent.

I don't mind your lack of response to points. Afaic it says everything about your inability to make an honest evaluation of your rationalizations and hypocrisies.

And nice job replying to a post you already replied to fewer than 24 hours ago. Yet again, you're not helping dispel the image of being demented.

Eric Stoner
05-10-2022, 08:01 AM
What law was broken by leaking the DRAFT? A Supreme Court justice's DRAFT is not classified information.

For the last time, the leaker violated Title 18, Section 641 of the U.S. Code. Arguably they also obstructed justice. If the leaker is a law clerk then they violated Canon 3 D of the Canons of Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks. Violation of same is grounds for disbarment. Yes, I think the leaker should be punished. I think justice should be swift, sure and severe. I reject any equivalence between the leaker and anyone kicked off Twitter. The Court did not censor anything. Confidentiality is essential to its essential functioning. Maintaining confidentiality is not censorship. Is it "censorship" when your doctor, lawyer, spouse or priest maintains your confidence and refuses to disclose what you said to them ?

Most of my critics in this thread have emphasized that Twitter was a private platform and had the right to set its own rules as to content and speakers. Fine. So be it. But then how can you criticize Musk and wear out your worry beads if he wants to broaden the standards and permit MORE speech instead of less ? I have also seen the argument that Twitter ought to protect us " from morons who believe falsehoods ". Presumably by controlling the flow of information. Assuming of course that it is somehow possible to "idiot proof" the world. People make bad decisions and do stupid things all the time. Our prisons , hospitals and graveyards are full of them. Although the Consumer Product Safety Commission and various manufacturers have been doing their best to try. My personal favorite warning label is on Schwinn's stroller: " Always remove child from stroller before folding." LOL. I've always wondered how many infants were saved because of that warning label ?

If anybody made a decision based solely on what they read on Twitter as opposed to all the reliable, reputable and verifiable information out there then THEY are responsible for the consequences. Not Twitter ! Twitter is just one platform in a huge array of information sources. I have little sympathy for anyone who closed themselves off from other and better sources of information. I don't care what their decision was . To use a particular medication or not ; to vote or not to vote for a particular candidate; to wear a mask or not or get vaccinated or not. The sole responsibility for their choice is theirs.

Personally I don't like children being lied to and taught Creationism and/or Creation Science ( sic ). But there is no way to stop it being taught in PRIVATE schools , homes and Sunday Schools. Or to shut down Ark Encounter in Kentucky; or even require a warning sign like : " This attraction is Anti-Science ". It is not a perfect world and it is full of imperfect people leading imperfect lives and making imperfect decisions. Often based on imperfect information and too often on feelings over facts. Welcome to the real world.

Leaking is not part of free speech. I never said I wanted any speech or speaker banned. I want the leaker punished. They committed a crime and violated the Canons Of Ethics .

The Twitter account of the N.Y. Post was suspended when they posted Hunter Biden's e-mails. At the time it was not claimed that they constituted disinformation or misinformation by Twitter. Others made that claim without any basis whatsoever. Twitter used the specious grounds that the e-mails had been hacked which was totally and completely false. Dorsey admitted that the whole fiasco was a mistake.

dpacrkk
05-10-2022, 08:26 AM
For the last time, the leaker violated Title 18, Section 641 of the U.S. Code. Arguably they also obstructed justice.

There's no clear definition that says it's a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 641 is a broad statute designed for embezzlement and physical property, not information.

Side note: Big surprise! You can blindly parrot purely conservative media and think tanks, who are the only sources that think this.

https://i.imgur.com/vRUgNpC.png

Eric Stoner
05-10-2022, 08:32 AM
I don't mind your lack of response to points. Afaic it says everything about your inability to make an honest evaluation of your rationalizations and hypocrisies.

And nice job replying to a post you already replied to fewer than 24 hours ago. Yet again, you're not helping dispel the image of being demented.

When someone calls me demented because they disagree with me I choose to take it as a compliment without even considering the source. Now can we cut out the personalizing ?

Eric Stoner
05-10-2022, 08:35 AM
There's no clear definition that says it's a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 641 is a broad statute designed for embezzlement and physical property, not information.

Side note: Big surprise! You can blindly parrot purely conservative media and think tanks, who are the only sources that think this.

https://i.imgur.com/vRUgNpC.png

I READ the statute for myself. Did you ? I read the Canons of Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks. Did you ?
The language of both is pretty clear cut and there is case law applying both.

A number of former law clerks for LIBERAL Supreme Court Justices have stated that what the leaker did was outrageous and cannot be tolerated. Afaic it is not a Liberal vs. Conservative issue. ALL incoming law clerks are told on Day 1 that they have an absolute , unconditional duty to protect the confidences of the Court and what will happen if they violate those confidences. No excuses. No exceptions. Regardless of which justice they work for .

Rather than argue further we'll have to agree to disagree.

Eric Stoner
05-10-2022, 08:49 AM
You've tried this defense of "but other people do it too!" before. You cannot seriously be this obtuse, so you are obviously being intentionally dishonest with yourself. Honestly just ask yourself these questions and admit it's not about freedom, it's about your outrage that something didn't work out for once in your life.


Do you think others' bad behavior absolves everyone else?
Did it occur to you that those other culprits just didn't get caught?
Did you consider that your problem might not be "but muh freedomz, don't tread on me!" and could just be that these social networks might be biased?


And if you're trying to find a double standard or something, then I responded many times, including here (https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?229894-Rioters-storm-Capital-Building-in-DC/page10&p=3206009#post3206009) and here (https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?229256-Twitter-and-Facebook-Controlling-Speech&p=3211595&viewfull=1#post3211595) shortly after that, you demented boomer. Note that one of those posts also showed when Twitter showed bias in favor conservatives as well.

Since you've tried to take me to task for not responding here goes:

When did I ever say that "two wrongs make a right" ?
What "other culprits " are you referring to ?
Your third point is almost unintelligible. That Twitter and Facebook were biased in favor of Liberals and against Conservatives supports MY argument.

For whatever it's worth from a demented boomer lol.

dpacrkk
05-10-2022, 08:54 AM
When someone calls me demented because they disagree with me I choose to take it as a compliment without even considering the source. Now can we cut out the personalizing ?

You're misrepresenting the course of events. Let's summarize (because this will be hilarious):


You referred to Twitter many times as a public platform. You have been informed many times that it is private enterprise over the course of 15 months.
You typed that Musk "will" own Twitter by the end of the year, and that it "is" a private company now. Both cannot be simultaneously true.
You typed Twitter "was" owned by its shareholders despite the fact that it still is a publicly traded company.
You have also criticized public figures for their incorrect word usage, and diagnosed them as having failing mental state. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
You couldn't find how many people voted in a Twitter poll when the figure is right below the poll.
You can't see that people should face the consequences of breaking the rules of a microblogging service, but tell us that people should face the consequences of civil disobedience.
You try to appeal to hypocrisy that Twitter's terms of service aren't evenly applied long after I showed you instances that it has been biased in favor of conservatives.
You reply to a post that you already replied to fewer than 24 hours ago.


That was all in the course of 8 days! Can you honestly tell yourself it's solely due to ideological differences and not an evaluation based on empirical evidence?

dpacrkk
05-10-2022, 09:00 AM
When did I ever say that "two wrongs make a right" ?

You implied it with the post to which I was replying:


And were they evenly applied ?


What "other culprits " are you referring to ?

Other people that broke Twitter's terms of service and didn't get their posts moderated, accounts banned, or whatever else.


Your third point is almost unintelligible. That Twitter and Facebook were biased in favor of Liberals and against Conservatives supports MY argument.

/facepalm. If your issue is that you feel that they're biased, then the base issue is not about freedoms, it's about the bias. And yet again, I've shown you that Twitter has also showed bias in favor of conservatives, so your premise isn't even necessarily correct. You also don't consider the possibility that one end of the spectrum breaks the rules more often than the other.

Eric Stoner
05-10-2022, 09:48 AM
You're misrepresenting the course of events. Let's summarize (because this will be hilarious):


You referred to Twitter many times as a public platform. You have been informed many times that it is private enterprise over the course of 15 months.
You typed that Musk "will" own Twitter by the end of the year, and that it "is" a private company now. Both cannot be simultaneously true.
You typed Twitter "was" owned by its shareholders despite the fact that it still is a publicly traded company.
You have also criticized public figures for their incorrect word usage, and diagnosed them as having failing mental state. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
You couldn't find how many people voted in a Twitter poll when the figure is right below the poll.
You can't see that people should face the consequences of breaking the rules of a microblogging service, but tell us that people should face the consequences of civil disobedience.
You try to appeal to hypocrisy that Twitter's terms of service aren't evenly applied long after I showed you instances that it has been biased in favor of conservatives.
You reply to a post that you already replied to fewer than 24 hours ago.


That was all in the course of 8 days! Can you honestly tell yourself it's solely due to ideological differences and not an evaluation based on empirical evidence?

This has really gotten pedantic. For any lack of clarity or even inconsistency on my part I take total responsibility and promise to try and do better. As much as my demented boomerism will permit.

Afaik Twitter is open to all . Anyone can post on Twitter. That makes it a PUBLIC forum albeit privately owned by its shareholders. Twitter is publicly traded making it a "public " corporation. Musk wants to buy all the Twitter stock and take it private. Am I right so far ?
Twitter has rules as to posting and content. It used those rules to kick off Trump and suspend the account of the N.Y. Post. Musk says that he will permit Trump to come back on Twitter. Dorsey has admitted that suspending the Post account was a mistake. How am I doing so far ?
I have only been diagnosed as "demented " by you. Several prominent neurologists have called Biden's mental state and cognitive abilities into question. The list of his gaffes and inappropriate affect are well documented. I am doing everything I can to fight off Mother Nature and Father Time. Aren't we all ? Maybe I should order some Prevagen ? Since you are so concerned I will redouble my efforts.
I didn't see the raw numbers of Musk's Twitter poll. Mea culpa, mea culpa , mea maxima culpa.
If you are aware of anyone posting confidential information on Twitter I think you should report it immediately.
Part of civil disobedience is acceptance of the consequences of breaking the law. Gandhi, MLK , Thoreau, the Berrigan brothers and a long list of activists were all willing to go to jail and did so.
I am not aware of any bias on Twitter's part in favor of the conservative pov.

dpacrkk
05-10-2022, 10:14 AM
Yes:


Afaik Twitter is open to all [and] privately owned by its shareholders. Twitter is publicly traded making it a "public " corporation. Musk wants to buy all the Twitter stock and take it private.
Twitter has rules as to posting and content. It used those rules to kick off Trump and suspend the account of the N.Y. Post. Musk says that he will permit Trump to come back on Twitter.
I am doing everything I can to fight off Mother Nature and Father Time.
I didn't see the raw numbers of Musk's Twitter poll. Mea culpa, mea culpa , mea maxima culpa.
If you are aware of anyone posting confidential information on Twitter I think you should report it immediately.
Part of civil disobedience is acceptance of the consequences of breaking the law. Gandhi, MLK , Thoreau, the Berrigan brothers and a long list of activists were all willing to go to jail and did so.


No:


Dorsey has admitted that suspending the Post account was a mistake.
I have only been diagnosed as "demented " by you.
Since you are so concerned I will redouble my efforts.
I am not aware of any bias on Twitter's part in favor of the conservative pov.


Dorsey admitted blocking the tweets was a mistake, not suspending the account.
I didn't diagnose you.
I am not concerned.
missa.p1600 first informed you here (https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?229894-Rioters-storm-Capital-Building-in-DC&p=3206002&viewfull=1#post3206002) long ago. You acknowledged Twitter giving Trump special treatment here (https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?229894-Rioters-storm-Capital-Building-in-DC&p=3206161&viewfull=1#post3206161). You can't honestly feign ignorance now unless you have diminished mental capacities (and possibly *whisper* dementia).

Misleading:


Anyone can post on Twitter. That makes it a PUBLIC forum
Several prominent neurologists have called Biden's mental state and cognitive abilities into question.
The list of his gaffes and inappropriate affect are well documented.


Being a public forum is irrelevant. Being private property means the owners can do what they want, i.e. remove content and suspend/ban/delete accounts.
The same is true for prominent psychologists saying he's fine.
I provided you a list of your own gaffes to which you just replied. But you feel you're mentally fine after admitting to multiple mistakes.

Eric Stoner
05-10-2022, 10:20 AM
Yes:



No:


Dorsey admitted blocking the tweets was a mistake, not suspending the account.
I didn't diagnose you.
I am not concerned.
missa.p1600 first informed you here (https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?229894-Rioters-storm-Capital-Building-in-DC&p=3206002&viewfull=1#post3206002) long ago. You acknowledged Trump got special treatment here (https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?229894-Rioters-storm-Capital-Building-in-DC&p=3206161&viewfull=1#post3206161). You can't honestly feign ignorance now...(whisper) unless you have dementia.

Misleading:


Being a public forum does not mean you can post whatever you want and not get your content removed nor your account deleted.
The same is true for prominent psychologists saying he's fine.
I provided you a list of your own gaffes to which you just replied. But you feel you're mentally fine after admitting to multiple mistakes.

I truly apologize for my imperfections and shortcomings.

Leave the experts out of it. Having lived with not one but two grandparents with Alzheimer's I think he is in the early stages of dementia. We can agree to disagree.

What was the difference between blocking the Post's tweets and suspending their account ? The effect was the same.

I said Trump got "special treatment " where ? On Twitter ? Please explain what you are talking about and for my benefit please go slowly.

eagle2
05-10-2022, 10:44 AM
Leave the experts out of it. Having lived with not one but two grandparents with Alzheimer's I think he is in the early stages of dementia. We can agree to disagree.


You're exhibit A on why Twitter and Facebook need to censor posts. You believe nonsensical, crazy right-wing conspiracy theories like this.



What was the difference between blocking the Post's tweets and suspending their account ? The effect was the same.

I said Trump got "special treatment " where ? On Twitter ? Please explain what you are talking about and for my benefit please go slowly.

He linked to it in the comment you replied too. Here's the full url:

https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?229894-Rioters-storm-Capital-Building-in-DC&p=3206002&viewfull=1#post3206002

dpacrkk
05-10-2022, 11:10 AM
I truly apologize for my imperfections and shortcomings.

And we'll know you're genuine if/when you avoid repeating these mistakes.


Leave the experts out of it. Having lived with not one but two grandparents with Alzheimer's I think he is in the early stages of dementia. We can agree to disagree.

They're the ones qualified to evaluate it though.

And I guess it's time to point out the convenience that some verbal gaffes are due to dementia, but others aren't. For example, there were no posts when a certain someone said the Continental Army took over the airports during the Revolutionary War, or said "7-Eleven" instead of "9/11," or said he met with the president of the Virgin Islands. There's more than that, but I stuck with the comedy Rule of Three.


What was the difference between blocking the Post's tweets and suspending their account ? The effect was the same.

If this is a serious question, then after having its content removed and being instructed to stop, they continued and got suspended (and not even for particularly long).


I said Trump got "special treatment " where ? On Twitter ? Please explain what you are talking about and for my benefit please go slowly.

I gave you a link to the post. People without mental deficiencies can trace the sub-thread from it easily. Kidding...kind of.

eagle2
05-10-2022, 11:23 AM
For the last time, the leaker violated Title 18, Section 641 of the U.S. Code. Arguably they also obstructed justice. If the leaker is a law clerk then they violated Canon 3 D of the Canons of Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks. Violation of same is grounds for disbarment. Yes, I think the leaker should be punished. I think justice should be swift, sure and severe. I reject any equivalence between the leaker and anyone kicked off Twitter. The Court did not censor anything. Confidentiality is essential to its essential functioning. Maintaining confidentiality is not censorship. Is it "censorship" when your doctor, lawyer, spouse or priest maintains your confidence and refuses to disclose what you said to them ?


You reject it because you're in favor of censorship when it comes to information you don't want made public, but you're against censorship when it comes to information that you do want made public. I've never seen such hypocrisy. Medical information is personal information and can potentially harm that patient if it is made public. Nobody was harmed by making the Supreme Court's decision public before the SC did. Not allowing information to be made public in regard to actions by public officials is censorship, except in cases of classified information that could harm national security. It's obvious that your entire reasoning on your opposition to Twitter and FB blocking posts about Hunter Biden's laptop, is because you hate the Biden's, and want to see them humiliated. You want the Supreme Court's decision to be censored, because you don't seem to have a problem with this horrible, abhorrent ruling, that can potentially harm many women.



Most of my critics in this thread have emphasized that Twitter was a private platform and had the right to set its own rules as to content and speakers. Fine. So be it. But then how can you criticize Musk and wear out your worry beads if he wants to broaden the standards and permit MORE speech instead of less ? I have also seen the argument that Twitter ought to protect us " from morons who believe falsehoods ". Presumably by controlling the flow of information. Assuming of course that it is somehow possible to "idiot proof" the world. People make bad decisions and do stupid things all the time. Our prisons , hospitals and graveyards are full of them. Although the Consumer Product Safety Commission and various manufacturers have been doing their best to try. My personal favorite warning label is on Schwinn's stroller: " Always remove child from stroller before folding." LOL. I've always wondered how many infants were saved because of that warning label ?


Because businesses should act responsibly. Social media platforms shouldn't allow their platforms to be used to incite violence and harm others, the same way businesses shouldn't sell products that are unsafe or harmful. Nobody is saying we can "idiot proof" the world, but just because we can't, doesn't mean we shouldn't take any steps to prevent lies and misinformation from being spread. There is no question that we would be much better off if the press and social medial platforms all refused to print or allowed to be posted, all of the lies about the election that were told by Trump and his sycophants. We would also be much better off if the press and social media platforms blocked all of the lies that were told about covid-19, as well as the vaccines. There is also no question we will be much better off if the defamation lawsuit against Alex Jones bankrupts him and forces him to shut down his conspiracy theory websites.



If anybody made a decision based solely on what they read on Twitter as opposed to all the reliable, reputable and verifiable information out there then THEY are responsible for the consequences. Not Twitter ! Twitter is just one platform in a huge array of information sources. I have little sympathy for anyone who closed themselves off from other and better sources of information. I don't care what their decision was . To use a particular medication or not ; to vote or not to vote for a particular candidate; to wear a mask or not or get vaccinated or not. The sole responsibility for their choice is theirs.


You still don't seem to understand the simple concept that when people believe lies and absurd conspiracy theories, not only are the people who believe them harmed, but often, others are harmed as well. Alex Jones made the lives of parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, hell, with the lies he was putting out about them. Trump and his sycophants made the lives of election workers hell, for nothing more than doing their jobs. People shouldn't be subject to this abuse and threats, and sometimes violence, just to make you happy with your "more speech is better" and "fight bad speech with good speech," especially when you want to censor information that you don't want made public.



Leaking is not part of free speech. I never said I wanted any speech or speaker banned. I want the leaker punished. They committed a crime and violated the Canons Of Ethics .


Leaking is part of free speech, just as much as making public what was supposedly on Hunter Biden's laptop.



The Twitter account of the N.Y. Post was suspended when they posted Hunter Biden's e-mails. At the time it was not claimed that they constituted disinformation or misinformation by Twitter. Others made that claim without any basis whatsoever. Twitter used the specious grounds that the e-mails had been hacked which was totally and completely false. Dorsey admitted that the whole fiasco was a mistake.

It wasn't a fiasco, and Twitter didn't do anything wrong. Just because you disagree with what Twitter did, doesn't mean it was wrong, especially when you want to go a lot further than Twitter, in blocking free speech.

Eric Stoner
05-10-2022, 11:45 AM
If you want to believe that Biden has all his faculties and is physically and mentally capable or being POTUS you are free to think so. Personally I think it is wishful thinking on your part but whatever. I don't need right wing sources to watch him on T.V. for myself and conclude he is not all there. I certainly did not form my opinion based on Twitter or Facebook. Or any media report. I can watch and listen to him for myself.

I've had enough. As usual with this stuff we have gotten to the point where we are arguing in circles and repeating ourselves . We'll have to agree to disagree.

Eric Stoner
05-10-2022, 12:15 PM
You reject it because you're in favor of censorship when it comes to information you don't want made public, but you're against censorship when it comes to information that you do want made public. I've never seen such hypocrisy. Medical information is personal information and can potentially harm that patient if it is made public. Nobody was harmed by making the Supreme Court's decision public before the SC did. Not allowing information to be made public in regard to actions by public officials is censorship, except in cases of classified information that could harm national security. It's obvious that your entire reasoning on your opposition to Twitter and FB blocking posts about Hunter Biden's laptop, is because you hate the Biden's, and want to see them humiliated. You want the Supreme Court's decision to be censored, because you don't seem to have a problem with this horrible, abhorrent ruling, that can potentially harm many women.



Because businesses should act responsibly. Social media platforms shouldn't allow their platforms to be used to incite violence and harm others, the same way businesses shouldn't sell products that are unsafe or harmful. Nobody is saying we can "idiot proof" the world, but just because we can't, doesn't mean we shouldn't take any steps to prevent lies and misinformation from being spread. There is no question that we would be much better off if the press and social medial platforms all refused to print or allowed to be posted, all of the lies about the election that were told by Trump and his sycophants. We would also be much better off if the press and social media platforms blocked all of the lies that were told about covid-19, as well as the vaccines. There is also no question we will be much better off if the defamation lawsuit against Alex Jones bankrupts him and forces him to shut down his conspiracy theory websites.



You still don't seem to understand the simple concept that when people believe lies and absurd conspiracy theories, not only are the people who believe them harmed, but often, others are harmed as well. Alex Jones made the lives of parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, hell, with the lies he was putting out about them. Trump and his sycophants made the lives of election workers hell, for nothing more than doing their jobs. People shouldn't be subject to this abuse and threats, and sometimes violence, just to make you happy with your "more speech is better" and "fight bad speech with good speech," especially when you want to censor information that you don't want made public.



Leaking is part of free speech, just as much as making public what was supposedly on Hunter Biden's laptop.



It wasn't a fiasco, and Twitter didn't do anything wrong. Just because you disagree with what Twitter did, doesn't mean it was wrong, especially when you want to go a lot further than Twitter, in blocking free speech.

The Supreme Court was harmed by the leak. If the leak was not wrongful then why are there Canons Of Ethics for law clerks ? You want to throw those out too ?

I don't like the Bidens. I think they are a bunch of crooks. Sue me.

Afaic Alex Jones is a complete and total asshole and got what he deserved.

I am all in favor of safe products. If Schwinn wants to post a warning addressed to and for idiots that is their business.

Whether or not a leak is protected by the First Amendment depends. The N.Y. Times and Washington Post were allowed to publish the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg was prosecuted. His case was dismissed based on prosecutorial misconduct. For me the issue was that nothing he revealed was really "Top Secret ". It was a tough case because it was not for him to second guess the Pentagon and yet I am glad he did. And glad that his case was dismissed. And that the Times and Post were permitted to publish.

We will see if Musk is able to take Twitter private. I hope he does. And if he does and you have at least one conniption per day over something that he permits to be posted then I'll consider it to be huge "Win Win". Lol.

dpacrkk
05-10-2022, 01:11 PM
If you want to believe that Biden has all his faculties and is physically and mentally capable or being POTUS you are free to think so. Personally I think it is wishful thinking on your part but whatever. I don't need right wing sources to watch him on T.V. for myself and conclude he is not all there. I certainly did not form my opinion based on Twitter or Facebook. Or any media report. I can watch and listen to him for myself.

That wasn't the point! You're critical of certain people's verbal gaffes, but give a pass to someone who very famously and public said the Continental Army took over the airports during the Revolutionary War, "7-Eleven" instead of "9/11," and that he met with the president of the Virgin Islands. And you give yourself a pass for your various mistakes too.

eagle2
05-10-2022, 09:13 PM
The Supreme Court was harmed by the leak. If the leak was not wrongful then why are there Canons Of Ethics for law clerks ? You want to throw those out too ?


You seem to have a very poor understanding of logic. The fact that there are Canons Of Ethics for law clerks does not prove the leak harmed the court.



I don't like the Bidens. I think they are a bunch of crooks. Sue me.


There aren't even allegations that President Biden has done anything wrong. Just because you don't like someone, doesn't make him a crook. You don't have a very good record on character judgement. You've expressed admiration for Rush Limbaugh, a disgusting, lying, racist, misogynistic POS. You've frequently defended the stupid, lying, racist, sexual predator and crook, Donald Trump. You defended rapist Hugh Hefner. I don't see the fact that you don't like the Bidens as being a bad thing.



Afaic Alex Jones is a complete and total asshole and got what he deserved.


Then you agree with me that it shouldn't be allowed for people to post lies and misinformation on the internet?



Whether or not a leak is protected by the First Amendment depends. The N.Y. Times and Washington Post were allowed to publish the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg was prosecuted. His case was dismissed based on prosecutorial misconduct. For me the issue was that nothing he revealed was really "Top Secret ". It was a tough case because it was not for him to second guess the Pentagon and yet I am glad he did. And glad that his case was dismissed. And that the Times and Post were permitted to publish.

We will see if Musk is able to take Twitter private. I hope he does. And if he does and you have at least one conniption per day over something that he permits to be posted then I'll consider it to be huge "Win Win". Lol.

Like you've been having over the leaked Supreme Court decision? If Musk ruins Twitter, I'll just stop using it, and so will millions of others. Musk is already starting to backtrack. Now he's saying that Trump should have been suspended for inciting the insurrection.

Eric Stoner
05-11-2022, 07:48 AM
That wasn't the point! You're critical of certain people's verbal gaffes, but give a pass to someone who very famously and public said the Continental Army took over the airports during the Revolutionary War, "7-Eleven" instead of "9/11," and that he met with the president of the Virgin Islands. And you give yourself a pass for your various mistakes too.

I assume you are referring to Trump. I never liked him and that is no secret. He is a megalomaniac afaic but I don't think he has dementia. He doesn't need it. He has enough problems lol.

dpacrkk
05-11-2022, 08:06 AM
I assume you are referring to Trump. I never liked him and that is no secret. He is a megalomaniac afaic but I don't think he has dementia. He doesn't need it. He has enough problems lol.

Whoosh

Eric Stoner
05-11-2022, 08:11 AM
You seem to have a very poor understanding of logic. The fact that there are Canons Of Ethics for law clerks does not prove the leak harmed the court.



There aren't even allegations that President Biden has done anything wrong. Just because you don't like someone, doesn't make him a crook. You don't have a very good record on character judgement. You've expressed admiration for Rush Limbaugh, a disgusting, lying, racist, misogynistic POS. You've frequently defended the stupid, lying, racist, sexual predator and crook, Donald Trump. You defended rapist Hugh Hefner. I don't see the fact that you don't like the Bidens as being a bad thing.



Then you agree with me that it shouldn't be allowed for people to post lies and misinformation on the internet?



Like you've been having over the leaked Supreme Court decision? If Musk ruins Twitter, I'll just stop using it, and so will millions of others. Musk is already starting to backtrack. Now he's saying that Trump should have been suspended for inciting the insurrection.

The Canons of Ethics are not suggestions. They are RULES that the clerks are obligated to follow whether they like it or not. I cited the statute that was violated. If the leaker is found out and if he or she is a clerk they are subject to disbarment. For violating the Canons of Ethics AND for a felony conviction for which disbarment is automatic.

There ARE allegations that Biden misused his office as Veep to benefit Jim and Hunter. A L L E G A T I O N S . Not yet formalized in an indictment. Certainly not yet proven. As shown by both Hunter's e-mails and Bobulinski together with other sources. Possible crimes include tax evasion and influence peddling. There may be others or it may turn out that there is inadequate evidence to proceed against any of the Bidens. Even if there is such evidence Joe can't be indicted while he is POTUS. Impeached yes but not indicted and even that is questionable unless there are crimes alleged that occurred while he was actually POTUS. He could, repeat COULD, be named as an unindicted co-conspirator as Nixon was. We don't know yet. Investigations are ongoing. We will see.

Will you please stop holding back and tell us how you really feel about Limbaugh. You didn't like the guy. So what. Who cares ? I think you're just jealous of his success . He's DEAD ! Go find out where his remains are buried and piss on his grave. Same thing for Trump although you might want to wait until after he croaks before you try and piss on him. He still has Secret Service protection. Hefner is different. Early on in the show "Secrets of Playboy " that many of us watched I raised questions about some, repeat SOME of the unproven allegations against him. As the allegations piled up I found them to be more and more disturbing and more and more credible so I evolved into being more of a believer . I NEVER said he was a good person. Check your PM's for something I don't want to post.

If you or anyone is going to try and eliminate lies and misinformation from the internet, Good Luck ! I think you will find it to be a herculean or even Sisyphusian task. Rather than try I think it best to let the legal system work via libel suits. And to respond to "lies and misinformation" the same way humankind has been doing for centuries ; with truth and truthier information.

eagle2
05-11-2022, 08:52 PM
The Canons of Ethics are not suggestions. They are RULES that the clerks are obligated to follow whether they like it or not. I cited the statute that was violated. If the leaker is found out and if he or she is a clerk they are subject to disbarment. For violating the Canons of Ethics AND for a felony conviction for which disbarment is automatic.


You continue to evade my question. How was the Supreme Court harmed by the leak? Stating laws or policies is not showing any harm to the Supreme Court. This is a very simple and straightforward question. Please answer instead of citing laws or policies. That doesn't prove anything.



There ARE allegations that Biden misused his office as Veep to benefit Jim and Hunter. A L L E G A T I O N S . Not yet formalized in an indictment. Certainly not yet proven. As shown by both Hunter's e-mails and Bobulinski together with other sources. Possible crimes include tax evasion and influence peddling. There may be others or it may turn out that there is inadequate evidence to proceed against any of the Bidens. Even if there is such evidence Joe can't be indicted while he is POTUS. Impeached yes but not indicted and even that is questionable unless there are crimes alleged that occurred while he was actually POTUS. He could, repeat COULD, be named as an unindicted co-conspirator as Nixon was. We don't know yet. Investigations are ongoing. We will see.


Influence peddling is not a crime. How do you think lobbyists make their money? Basically, you've decided already that President Biden is guilty. You just have to find the crime.



Will you please stop holding back and tell us how you really feel about Limbaugh. You didn't like the guy. So what. Who cares ? I think you're just jealous of his success . He's DEAD ! Go find out where his remains are buried and piss on his grave. Same thing for Trump although you might want to wait until after he croaks before you try and piss on him. He still has Secret Service protection. Hefner is different. Early on in the show "Secrets of Playboy " that many of us watched I raised questions about some, repeat SOME of the unproven allegations against him. As the allegations piled up I found them to be more and more disturbing and more and more credible so I evolved into being more of a believer . I NEVER said he was a good person. Check your PM's for something I don't want to post.


You completely missed my point.

On Hugh Hefner:


Has anyone said he was all bad ? Almost everyone who knew him said he could be "your best friend " and was very generous. He is also an ACCUSED predator and exploiter. I fail to see the contradiction in criticizing his purported negatives and praising his DOCUMENTED and PROVEN good works.



If you or anyone is going to try and eliminate lies and misinformation from the internet, Good Luck ! I think you will find it to be a herculean or even Sisyphusian task. Rather than try I think it best to let the legal system work via libel suits. And to respond to "lies and misinformation" the same way humankind has been doing for centuries ; with truth and truthier information.


So it was better to let Alex Jones's victims be subject to years of harassment and death threats, until the case works its way through court?

You continue to make straw man arguments and evade my points. Nobody said we could eliminate all lies and misinformation. My position is that the owners of social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook should not allow their platforms to be used to spread lies and misinformation, and should delete posts and and suspend users when they violate the rules. You have two different standards for speech. Speech you're in favor of, and speech you're against. You don't want Supreme Court justices or their clerks to be allowed to make decisions public, before they're formally announced, despite the fact that you can't even specify what harm it causes. You do want nutjobs and conspiracy theorists to be allowed to post all the lies and misinformation they want on social media, no matter how much harm or violence it causes.

Eric Stoner
05-12-2022, 08:33 AM
You continue to evade my question. How was the Supreme Court harmed by the leak? Stating laws or policies is not showing any harm to the Supreme Court. This is a very simple and straightforward question. Please answer instead of citing laws or policies. That doesn't prove anything.



Influence peddling is not a crime. How do you think lobbyists make their money? Basically, you've decided already that President Biden is guilty. You just have to find the crime.



You completely missed my point.

On Hugh Hefner:






So it was better to let Alex Jones's victims be subject to years of harassment and death threats, until the case works its way through court?

You continue to make straw man arguments and evade my points. Nobody said we could eliminate all lies and misinformation. My position is that the owners of social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook should not allow their platforms to be used to spread lies and misinformation, and should delete posts and and suspend users when they violate the rules. You have two different standards for speech. Speech you're in favor of, and speech you're against. You don't want Supreme Court justices or their clerks to be allowed to make decisions public, before they're formally announced, despite the fact that you can't even specify what harm it causes. You do want nutjobs and conspiracy theorists to be allowed to post all the lies and misinformation they want on social media, no matter how much harm or violence it causes.

Once again you are deliberately misunderstanding me presumably to try and show off and score points.

You obviously do not understand how the Supreme Court works. If they did not think that confidentiality was essential to its function ; that the justices have to be able to trust each other and not fear disclosure of their private conferences and private communications ( of which Alito's draft was one ) then they would not have rules governing same. They think so and have rules enforcing same including but not limited to the Canons of Ethics. Do you even know what the Canons of Ethics are ? And how sacred they are in the legal biz in general and pertaining to SCOTUS law clerks in particular ? If Alito's draft opinion can be leaked then anything from the Court can be leaked. Memos among the justices ; notes of their Justices Only conferences etc. At what point do you think leakers should stop ? Unless and until that leaker is found and dealt with the Justices are justifiably on edge and suspicious . Possibly of their fellow justices and definitely of their law clerks. Such an atmosphere has NEVER existed at the Court before. Despite strong ideological differences among the judges it has always been a collegial body where everyone trusted everyone else. RBG and Scalia were the best of friends ; everyone liked Bill Rehnquist including Brennan , Marshall and later RBG and Breyer.

Influence peddling is not criminal if a private citizen does it. It might be if Joe Biden did it while he was VEEP. A recent SCOTUS decision involving the former Governor of Virginia requires a strictly defined and clear quid pro quo which would not be easy to prove . Tax evasion is definitely illegal. Do I think he and his family are crooked ? Definitely . Joe wakes up telling lies about anything and everything and I don't trust him at all. Does that make them guilty of specific crimes ? Possibly but not necessarily. I clearly posted that Joe can't be indicted for anything while he is the POTUS. Also that he probably can't be impeached NOW for things he may have done while he was Veep. We shall see. I doubt very much that Joe will ever be held responsible for whatever wrongs he may have committed. Assuming there are any that are supported by sufficient evidence. I would like to see him held accountable in the Court of Public Opinion and in the history books. For now that is a big "Maybe". Hunter and Jim might, repeat MIGHT , be a different story depending on what the current investigation finds. We will see. Btw, you never applied the standard that you want me to apply to your own opining about Trump. Perhaps you might want to re-read Mueller's report. Just a suggestion.

I am taking your word that the "victims" of Alex Jones were harassed and subject to death threats. I honestly don't recall that and haven't done a search. I clearly posted that he is a disgusting and reprehensible individual and afaic nothing is too good for him. If Twitter wants to ban him or delete his posts that is fine with me. I never said otherwise . Jones and a few other nuts are extreme examples of what we are talking about and you know it.

I prefer free speech and free expression. If there are going to be rules for a private platform like Twitter or Facebook I prefer those rules to be clear and applied evenhandedly. Not politically filtered first. I again wish you Good Luck in your crusade to eliminate lies and misinformation from all sites and platforms. There is a LOT of it out there. I suggest you bring a LOT of help.

As I posted: I NEVER said Hefner was a good person. I DID say that he had done some good works. I ALSO said that as "Secrets of Playboy" went on I found some of the allegations made directly against Hefner to be more and more disturbing and more and more credible.

Eric Stoner
05-12-2022, 09:21 AM
I have been hesitant to do this because the specific thread dealing with it was closed but since we are discussing Alito's draft opinion I think there is vital point to be made here. As I posted, most of the EU countries permit abortion. Except for Sweden and the Netherlands they generally limit it to the First Trimester. More or less. To get a legal abortion past the cut-off time limit ranging from 13 to 20 weeks there must be a sound medical reason that passes review of some kind. As I posted, The Center For Reproductive Rights has an excellent overview of the laws in those countries and others like Japan and Israel. In ALL of those countries it is a settled issue. They do not have the demonstrations , debates ( civil and otherwise ) not to mention violence against abortion providers and opponents that we have had for almost 50 years. Even in strongly Catholic countries like Spain, Italy, Ireland and Austria. In those countries abortions are safe , legal and RARE because they have much more sex education and contraception than we do. More importantly the issue was decided legislatively not by unelected judges appointed for life. They have not had abortion clinics bombed , doctors killed or Right To Life groups and facilities attacked. Currently , at least two thirds of Americans favor retaining Roe. Some 85% OPPOSE the situation in N.Y. , N.J. , Illinois and California where abortions can be performed up to the point of birth. The Senate Bill that was just defeated went beyond codifying Roe's protections and would have guaranteed legal abortion up to the birth of a child. And there are cases in the aforementioned states where aborted fetuses were removed alive and permitted to die. The former governor of Virginia , Ralph Northam spoke in favor of infanticide in a video that went viral. He said whether to let the infant ( NOT fetus ) live was a matter for the mother and her doctor. Nancy Pelosi said something similar. That is light years beyond what Roe provided for. Even most Pro-Choicers think that is way too far.

If Schumer had really been smart and really wanted to put the screws to the Republicans and Joe Manchin he could have had his bill simply codify Roe. Or better yet simply guaranteed 1st Trimester abortions. Instead he wrote it to take the most extreme position possible.

Just as Blackmun was wrong in thinking that Roe v. Wade would settle the issue Alito is mistaken if he thinks his decision will do so. Any way you slice it overturning Roe en toto opens a Pandora's Box that could have and should have been left closed by simply upholding the Mississippi law. In the U.S. some 90% of abortions today are done by taking a pill. Most others are medically necessary at least to some extent. How exactly any state thinks they are going to ban or limit pill taking by women is both extremely unrealistic and runs counter to the overwhelming weight of public opinion. If you READ Alito's opinion it contains its own Achilles heel. He said that this decision "does not affect any other right ". Meaning Griswold is still good law and thus contraception cannot be banned or even really regulated by the states. So if the Pill is legal then why not RU486 , Plan B and the Morning After pill ?