please check out the anti-mandate news »

« prev   random   next »

8
0

Wow, a direct head-on attack on the First Amendment: bill proposed to criminalize free speech

By Patrick follow Patrick   2021 Jul 25, 7:39pm 256 views   15 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share      


https://reclaimthenet.org/senator-klobuchar-health-misinformation-act/

Senator Klobuchar ignores First Amendment with new bill to censor online “misinformation”

Section 230 is under attack again, this time by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) who introduced a bill that would make online platforms liable for the health “misinformation” posted by users to encourage mass censorship on the platform. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects online platforms from being sued over content posted by users.

The bill, called the Health Misinformation Act, would require online platforms to remove health misinformation, particularly vaccine skepticism during public health crises. Failure to remove such content would make a platform legally liable.


And who gets to decide on what is "misinformation"?

Do I get to decide after my wife's co-worker suddenly drops dead after getting the jab? Seems pretty obvious to me that the "vaccine" is murdering tens of thousands of people right now, with even official statistics showing it: https://patrick.net/post/1340091/2021-07-13-vax-death-spike

Or does only the government/Big Pharma cartel get to decide?
1   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Jul 25, 8:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This is actually great!

See, if the online platforms get into the business of curating what is posted, etc. then someone can file a lawsuit challenging their Section 230 liability exemption elsewhere.
2   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2021 Jul 25, 8:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I don't see how this is any different than the Silk Road case. Ross Ubricht was held accountable for people selling illegal items on a free market platform. By this logic, should ATT be liable for every call narcos make using their service?
3   Fortwaynemobile   ignore (3)   2021 Jul 25, 8:26pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
does only the government/Big Pharma cartel get to decide?


I think we both know the answer there if history is any indicator.
4   PeopleUnited   ignore (1)   2021 Jul 25, 9:40pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Wouldn’t this just give Zuckfuk, twatter and the other Stassi an excuse to literally continue doing what they are already doing? It is like they paid Klobuchar to write a bill making what they are already doing “legal”.

I use quotes around the word legal because supposedly it is illegal to infringe upon the first amendment right to free speech, regardless of what laws Congress would write that violate the Bill of Rights.
5   richwicks   ignore (3)   2021 Jul 25, 9:59pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

PeopleUnited says
Wouldn’t this just give Zuckfuk, twatter and the other Stassi an excuse to literally continue doing what they are already doing? It is like they paid Klobuchar to write a bill making what they are already doing “legal”.


Look, we need to make another platform that cannot be controlled. There's a few efforts, and there's danger in this. Some things SHOULD be censored. Imagine the worst thing that somebody can sell without being able to be traced, well, we have to do that.

I'm in full support of SOME censorship. Imagine the worst thing possible, because SOMEBODY will pay to see it. We can't have this because our fucking government has turned against us. It's unfortunate.
6   PeopleUnited   ignore (1)   2021 Jul 25, 10:24pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Don’t be daft, we have laws protecting the innocent from exploitation, but just because someone says something Mark or other Stassi don’t agree with doesn’t mean that they have a a right to censor speech. The only speech that needs protection by the first Amendment is unpopular speech.
7   richwicks   ignore (3)   2021 Jul 25, 10:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

PeopleUnited says
Don’t be daft, we have laws protecting the innocent from exploitation


Laws are selectively enforced.

Jeffrey Epstein was running a child rape ring, not child prostitution, rape ring - with the full knowledge of our intelligence agencies protected by them. This is why Alex Acosta considered it a victory to give him a slap on the hand, because he could do no more.

Hunter Biden is a crack addict, he's not arrested for that, he's selling access to his father's office through bullshit "jobs" like being on the board of directors of Burisma, and is now selling "art".

Laws are for the little people. Our judicial system will never prosecute these assholes. They are blatant criminals, our judicial system simply refuses to prosecute them. When will you realize this?
9   Shaman   ignore (2)   2021 Jul 26, 12:50am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Just goes to show you that when you feel like a Democrat is reasonable and fair, it’s an act. Klobuchar might masquerade as a Minnesota mom, but she’s Party to the bone, and a totalitarian NAZI just like they all are.
Fuck all Democrats!
Yes I know there are bad Republicans, but every single Democrat is bad!
10   PeopleUnited   ignore (1)   2021 Jul 26, 4:01am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

richwicks says
Laws are selectively enforced.
richwicks says
Some things SHOULD be censored.
richwicks says
Laws are for the little people. Our judicial system will never prosecute these assholes. They are blatant criminals, our judicial system simply refuses to prosecute them.


Do the math. Perhaps we are arguing in favor of the same thing, the Bill of Rights. But there is no need for censorship of political dissent.
11   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Jul 26, 11:02am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

NuttBoxer says
By this logic, should ATT be liable for every call narcos make using their service?


IF AT&T pronounces and affects a policy of policing just those sort of calls, then yes. It no longer is a mere carrier in that case.
12   Zak   ignore (0)   2021 Jul 26, 3:13pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
Or does only the government/Big Pharma cartel get to decide?


The courts get to decide? I'm all for this being the rule:

If you let anybody post anything they want, and only respond to court orders to remove things like child porn, or lets user community moderate, then you are free and clear.
However if you take a corporate position, and claim that the corporation will be responsible for policing the content on the site, then you become liable for the information on the site.
This lets small sites like patnet take down egregious content, without claiming responsibility for keeping the site "corporate friendly" for advertising, etc.. If you claim that your site is corporate maintained.. you get the obligation to keep it so.. no section 230 to weasel out of liability when you are policing political opinions...
13   richwicks   ignore (3)   2021 Jul 26, 3:30pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HunterTits says
This is actually great!

See, if the online platforms get into the business of curating what is posted, etc. then someone can file a lawsuit challenging their Section 230 liability exemption elsewhere.


They ALREADY are curating what is posted, and people ALREADY have filed lawsuits, just to have them thrown out.

Our government, is entirely, corrupt.
14   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Jul 26, 5:18pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

https://reclaimthenet.org/disillusioned-journalists-form-alliance-against-censorship-coronavirus/


A group of 26 journalists has come together to object to the COVID-19 “fearmongering” and the censorship of alternative views by mainstream media and Big Tech platforms since the beginning of the pandemic.

According to the group, the result of the fearmongering and censorship has been the public receiving a “distorted view of the truth.”

The group calls itself “Holding the Line: Journalists Against COVID Censorship.”

It comprises mostly UK-based journalists working at newspapers, broadcasters, and PR companies as staffers or freelancers.
The members were interviewed by Press Gazette, with most preferring to remain anonymous for fear of retribution from their employers.

However, some were more than happy to be named, including Sonia Elijah and Karen Harradine, investigative journalists for The Conservative Woman, former BBC journalist Tony Gosling, and Laura Berril, a PR and tech journalist.

The group’s mission is to promote a “prejudice-free” environment where journalists can air their concerns and raise awareness on lesser-covered issues.

To them, the media is doing “incredible work.” But there are some failures, especially surrounding COVID reporting, such as “a lack of context for statistics, due coverage for alternative treatments, scrutiny of PCR testing, attention to adverse vaccine reactions, or balanced examinations of the costs of lockdown.”

The group accused the UK media of often publishing “fear-inducing and sometimes inaccurate” reports, which in turn create hostility towards those who would prefer not to get the vaccines.

“It’s been unprecedented the way COVID-19 has been reported in the UK but not just in the UK, worldwide,” said Sonia Elijah, one of the members of the group who allowed Press Gazette to mention her name.

“There’s only been one official narrative played out in the mainstream media and that has not changed over time.

“There’s only been one ‘scientific truth’ allowed to be discussed: the one endorsed by worldwide governmental regulatory bodies, even that has been very selective. This has given the public a distorted view of the truth which has been highly damaging.”

Elijah expressed her concern about censorship of information that contradicts the narrative provided by the Trusted News Initiative.

“For a long time, we’ve been in this dark era of censorship that’s been embodied by the Trusted News Initiative which cuts across big tech and all mainstream media,” she said.

“It’s been packaged around this war on disinformation or misinformation- where anything that’s gone against the official narrative has not just been ‘fact checked’ but has been suppressed or removed.”

According to Gosling, the group is championing for balanced debate.

Gosling said: “Our main concern is that there’s a very powerful lobby behind many of these COVID measures, including treatment, lack of treatment and vaccines, obviously, but there isn’t much of a lobby in the other direction. And I think most of us feel that our employers of various sorts have not been representing both sides.”

Gosling had two of his interviews featuring doctors advocating for early treatment post-diagnosis, the effectiveness of ivermectin, and the dangers of the “experimental” vaccines removed by YouTube.

As an example of the “sometimes inaccurate” coverage, he pointed to a BBC report where the contributor claims the Pfizer jab was “100% safe” for kids between the ages of 12 and 15. It was only after his complaint that the BBC removed the “shocking” and “disgusting” claim and provided a correction.

Gosling added: “My own aim is to provide balance, that’s it basically. And also to point out to the public that the journalists don’t always get to choose what gets published.

“It’s the owners and the editors that have the final say, so we are all of the same mind that we would like to see more journalists being editors and having their own newspapers, having their own TV/radio stations but that’s very, very rare. So there’s always an editor somewhere just saying no, I don’t want this, and particularly through this pandemic that’s the way it’s been, people have found it difficult to get stories in, and it’s been frustrating.”
15   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Jul 27, 12:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
Do I get to decide after my wife's co-worker suddenly drops dead after getting the jab? Seems pretty obvious to me that the "vaccine" is murdering tens of thousands of people right now, with even official statistics showing it: https://patrick.net/post/1340091/2021-07-13-vax-death-spike


Another bit of personal evidence: a guy I worked with in my last job was the first to get the jab, and said it caused him extremely unpleasant side effects, including screaming nightmares.

I know this guy well. He's totally Democrat. I'm sure he's telling the truth about this.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions