202 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

Robert F Kennedy Jr however is an intelligent, educated person. So his belief in the 5G conspiracy theory is not due to having a low IQ. Thus it must be due to less than perfect mental health. We know that schizotypy can make people believe in conspiracy theories, for example, and an incredible 4% of the population have schizotypy.

 

 

Wait, are you under the impression that intelligent, educated people with high IQs are incapable of being merely wrong?

 

Hip ..... I've got some news that may come as a shock to you.

[Mr Serendipity]

 
You brought up the 1st Amendment when you said: "The government censoring people or suggesting twitter do it, is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment rights of the people it affected".

 

But from what I can work out, your statement is wrong. The government asking Twitter to censor certain things does not violate the 1st Amendment. Only the government passing a new law forcing censorship would be a violation of the 1st.

 

It's not that hard to understand.

 

US Constitution = Supreme Law of the Land

 

Clause 2 Supremacy Clause

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 

 

1st Amendment = Supreme law as written in the US Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights), prohibiting any laws passed by Congress on the restriction of free speech.

 

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

 

The government (Executive branch) can only enforce the laws of the land within the constitution or passed by congress (and only laws passed by congress which do not contradict the supreme law of land, the US constitution). And since Congress cannot pass a law that restricts freedom of speech, then the government has no legal authority to restrict the freedom of speech of anyone, and if they do, then they're acting outside of the law and violating that persons 1st Amendment right which is protected by law (a supreme law no less).

 

So if the government asks or requests Twitter to censor or remove someone for whatever reason, then that person has had their 1st Amendment violated by the government as they were involved in restricting that persons freedom of speech. 

 

If you can't understand this, well...

Edited by Mr Serendipity, 15 December 2022 - 10:55 PM.

[Hip]

It's not that hard to understand.

 

US Constitution = Supreme Law of the Land

 

 

1st Amendment = Supreme law as written in the US Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights), prohibiting any laws passed by Congress on the restriction of free speech.

 

 

The government (Executive branch) can only enforce the laws of the land within the constitution or passed by congress (and only laws passed by congress which do not contradict the supreme law of land, the US constitution). And since Congress cannot pass a law that restricts freedom of speech, then the government has no legal authority to restrict the freedom of speech of anyone, and if they do, then they're acting outside of the law and violating that persons 1st Amendment right which is protected by law (a supreme law no less).

 

So if the government asks or requests Twitter to censor or remove someone for whatever reason, then that person has had their 1st Amendment violated by the government as they were involved in restricting that persons freedom of speech. 

 

If you can't understand this, well...

 

We all know how the constitution sets the parameters in the government process of making new laws. But I don't think this is anything to do with the situation in Twitter.

 

There is a difference between making a person or organisation to do something by force of law, and asking that person or organisation nicely to do something voluntarily. Governments ask organisations for little favours all all the time. Often there is a tacit understanding in corporates and organisation that if you do the government the favours it asks, the government may may return some favours in the future, like give you some tax breaks for example.

 

For example many years ago, Microsoft secretly cooperated with the US government to make it easy for the government to get past the encryption of messages, for spying purposes. You can bet that Microsoft did this as a favour to the government, in order to get some favours in return, or to just be in the good books of the government. 

 

If the US government phones up Twitter, and says, "It would be great if you could do something about all this vaccine misinformation on your platform", that is not breaking any laws. It does not oblige Twitter to do anything. But Twitter might want to do it anyway, firstly because they might feel it is the right thing to do, and secondly because corporates always like to be in the government's good books.

 

We've seen time and time again how Zuckerberg was hauled up before Congress, being heavily grilled for all the fake news and misinformation on his platform, not to mention foreign actors trying to influence elections. According to you, it would be illegal for the government to do this to Zuckerberg, because you think that's against the 1st Amendment.  

[Hip]

If I understand Hip's position, I don't think he has a problem with a dictatorship per se - so long as it's a dictatorship run by "the Intellectuals".  So the upper class intellectual elites run everything, and the proles, the hoi polloi, the great unwashed masses know their place. They go to work, they sit there, shut up, and do what their betters tell them to do.

 

Am I off base here Hip?

 

You have a rather puerile way of discussing things. 

 

I don't think you really understand any of the points brought up on these issues of the post-truth society, misinformation, fake news, and so forth, which are pressing issues of the day.  

Edited by Hip, 16 December 2022 - 03:04 AM.

[Hebbeh]

I don't think you understand what the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution is.

 

While the people you listed spread misinformation in your opinion, that is still their right under the 1st Amendment to do so.

 

The government censoring people or suggesting twitter do it, is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment rights of the people it affected.

 

You should realize the government doesn't take an oath to defend their country, or their countrymen, or against disinformation, but an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

 

So it's much bigger than misinformation.

 

It would seem that perhaps it is you that misconstrues the rights and responsibilities of the First Amendment.  You may want to research slander as to how that may pertain to spoken freedom of expression or libel to written freedom of expression and how that may work out for you.

 

And of course, there is always the classic example of getting up and falsely screaming "FIRE" (or perhaps more apt in these times screaming "GUN") in a crowded venue and watching the panicked mob trample each other perhaps injuring and/or killing who knows how many and see how that freedom of speech works out for you.

 

Contrary your claim that "people that spread misinformation is their right under the 1st Amendment to do so" is highly debatable (and many lawyers would love to address that in a court room).

 

So called "freedom of speech" comes with responsibilities that you can be held accountable for which you may end up regretting.  And that includes criminal and civil damages as portrayed in the most basic examples above.

 

"Freedom of speech or expression" isn't all encompassing and doesn't give you free rein that results in damages to others without consequences.

 

Other examples from Wikipedia include:

 

https://en.wikipedia...eedom_of_speech

 

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

 

 

As you can see, the 1st Amendment comes with many limitations to free speech and doesn't necessarily grant you the right to make false claims (among many other limitations) without consequences.

 

edit:  You may want to research how freedom of speech worked out for Alex Jones.

Edited by Hebbeh, 16 December 2022 - 04:42 AM.

[Mr Serendipity]

It would seem that perhaps it is you that misconstrues the rights and responsibilities of the First Amendment.  You may want to research slander as to how that may pertain to spoken freedom of expression or libel to written freedom of expression and how that may work out for you.

 

And of course, there is always the classic example of getting up and falsely screaming "FIRE" (or perhaps more apt in these times screaming "GUN") in a crowded venue and watching the panicked mob trample each other perhaps injuring and/or killing who knows how many and see how that freedom of speech works out for you.

 

Contrary your claim that "people that spread misinformation is their right under the 1st Amendment to do so" is highly debatable (and many lawyers would love to address that in a court room).

 

So called "freedom of speech" comes with responsibilities that you can be held accountable for which you may end up regretting.  And that includes criminal and civil damages as portrayed in the most basic examples above.

 

"Freedom of speech or expression" isn't all encompassing and doesn't give you free rein that results in damages to others without consequences.

 

Other examples from Wikipedia include:

 

 

As you can see, the 1st Amendment comes with many limitations to free speech and doesn't necessarily grant you the right to make false claims (among many other limitations) without consequences.

 

edit:  You may want to research how freedom of speech worked out for Alex Jones.

Stop conflating ideas together.

 

First of all the Wikipedia page you quoted from is “Freedom of Speech” which encompasses the idea of freedom of speech from across the world, not the freedom of speech from the US and 1st Amendment which is much more protected and vast than any other country in the world.
 

I already knew the limitations to the 1st Amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court, but they are so few, that I didn’t bother bringing them up because they aren’t relevant to the subject we’re discussing. If the topic was about libel, slander, threats, then I would have posted the relevant information, but that’s not what we’re talking about here, we’re talking about how a US Government asking a US company to censor a US citizen is a clear violation of their 1st Amendment rights. 
 

I don’t need to debate the Alex Jones case, one I don’t know much about it, but also I don’t need to know much about it. In the US lower courts often get overruled by higher courts when challenged, and it can go all the way up to the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court. So I don’t need to debate one person who was found guilt in a lower court, and give it any credence to the argument, because the lower courts ruling could be overturned later. What matters it what has been challenged and established before in the Supreme Court and the topic at hand, which is can the government censor people due to what they consider is “misinformation”?

 

Here is the legal perspective from Stanford University on vaccine misinformation and the 1st Amendment:

 

 

Several countries have criminalized vaccine misinformation, but the United States has not. Has the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment allowed the continued spread of false claims?

 

The Supreme Court has held that many kinds of false statements are protected speech under the First Amendment. In a 2012 case called United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court struck down a law that made it a criminal offense to lie about having received military medals. It refused to hold that a statement’s falsity put it outside the realm of First Amendment protection.

But there are some kinds of false speech that can be penalized by the government, including lying in court, making false statements to the government, impersonating a government official, defaming someone and committing commercial fraud. But it’s a pretty limited list. The Supreme Court’s general finding is that false statements can often be valuable in terms of allowing people to challenge widely held beliefs without fear of repercussions, and that things could go pretty wrong if the government had a wider berth to regulate them.

 

 

 

What risks would be involved in allowing the government to police false claims?

One problem is that we may not all agree on how demonstrably false something has to be in order for it to be restricted.  For vaccine risks, for example, some claims about health harms have been persuasively disproven, while others have simply not been studied. So, if I claim that a vaccine was the reason my hair fell out, is that false or just not demonstrably true? Should the difference matter?

A related problem is that for some claims, especially scientific ones, the knowledge base that makes a statement true or false evolves over time. To complicate things further, some people who disseminate false statements know they are lies, while others believe they’re true. Finally, many people just don’t trust the government to not abuse the power to declare something false speech.

All of these challenges make the Supreme Court wary of restricting speech that might ultimately prove to be truthful, or at least contribute to public debate that aids in discovering the truth. The Supreme Court would prefer to let the decision about what’s true be hashed out by “the marketplace of ideas.”

But the interesting thing is, these problems also apply to areas where courts do allow regulation of false statements. Lawmakers have found ways of addressing them, such as requiring the government to prove certain things about the statement or the speaker’s state of mind. It’s not clear, therefore, why the Supreme Court draws the lines it does.

 

 

 

 

Regardless of everything written on both sides of this debate, we’ll get our answer soon enough. Why? Because if Elon Musk does release information that Fauci (who was working in the US government) was asking Twitter (a US company) to censor people (specifically US citizens), then it is most definitely going to court, and will probably go all the way up to the Supreme Court. So I’m sure we’ll find out in the coming year at some point. 

 

I’ve said my piece on the subject.

Edited by Mr Serendipity, 16 December 2022 - 09:40 AM.

[Mr Serendipity]

Also for anyone wondering about the Twitter is a private company and it can do what it wants and is not subject to the 1st Amendment argument, this actually may change in the future if challenged in the Supreme Court due to a Supreme Court precedent.

 

https://www.mtsu.edu...marsh-v-alabama

 

In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), the Supreme Court held that a person distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a “company town” was protected by the First Amendment rights of freedom of the press and religion and could not be arrested for trespass.

 

Jehovah's Witness arrested for passing out religious literature in a company town without a permit

 

The “company town” is largely a thing of the past, but in the early 1920s much of the U.S. coal mining population lived in company-owned homes, as did many southern cotton mill workers. Company towns comprised a small, but not insignificant, percentage of traditional public space. Around this time, the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation built homes for its workers, streets, sewers, and a downtown business district in Chickasaw, Alabama (a suburb of Mobile).

 

Gulf did not prohibit individuals from neighboring areas from entering Chickasaw, driving on its streets, and shopping in the business district. When Grace Marsh, a Jehovah’s Witness, began passing out religious literature on the sidewalk in front of the post office, however, she was told she would not be given a permit to distribute the literature and was asked to leave. Marsh refused. She was arrested and charged under state law with trespass on Gulf property. Marsh’s conviction was affirmed by the state appellate court and the Alabama Supreme Court. In the trial court and throughout the appellate process, Marsh argued that her individual constitutional rights of freedom of press and freedom of religion should not be trumped by the private property owner’s right to exclude.

 

Court found that the company town functioned like a public town

 

The U.S. Supreme Court examined the manner in which the Gulf-owned property functioned in the community. Writing for a 5-3 majority, Justice Hugo L. Black noted that “[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” The Court continued, “Whether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses the town[,] the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free.” Accordingly, the Court reversed Marsh’s conviction, concluding that the state could not use a trespass law to punish Marsh for distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a company town.

 

Three justices—Stanley F. Reed, Harold H. Burton, and Chief Justice Frederick M. Vinson—dissented. Reed wrote, “The rights of the owner, which the Constitution protects as well as the right of free speech, are not outweighed by the interests of the trespasser, even though he trespasses in behalf of religion or free speech.”

 

Case has remained a guiding principle of constitutional law

 

Although Marsh was decided at the end of the era of company towns, its central holding has remained a guiding principle of constitutional law. Two decades later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 limited private property owners’ ability to refuse entry or service to individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation. Additionally, Marsh became the conceptual foundation for PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) and other cases in which individuals claimed First Amendment rights of speech and free exercise in shopping malls, airports, and other quasi-public spaces.

 

 

As you can see this Supreme Court precedent allowed the extension of 1st Amendment constitutional rights to several private businesses (highlighted in red) many of which acted as quasi-public spaces. 

 

This precedent hasn't applied to the digital space at the moment as it hasn't been challenged in the Supreme Court yet. However due to certain big tech social media companies acting like quasi-public spaces in the digital sphere (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook etc...), there is a high chance that if this was challenged in the Supreme Court, the 1st Amendment right could extend to those Big Tech US companies as well. Then it won't be the government infringing on your 1st Amendment right, it will be the companies themselves when they censor you.

 

How this would work with moderation and such I don't know (will probably have to be written in Law like the Civil Rights Act), but there's precedent for such a case.

 

What makes this more likely to get to this point is ELON MUSK. Why? 

 

https://twitter.com/...777261654605828

 

 

He's basically giving the exact reason for the Supreme Court to use the precedent which they have already made, and later extended to several businesses with private properties.

 

Remember the Supreme Court ruled in the original case that the company town functioned like a public town. Elon Musk is saying "Twitter serves as the as the de facto public town square".

 

Right now even he himself is not limited by the 1st Amendment and can do what he wants. But if it goes to the Supreme Court, lets say Twitter censors someone and they take Twitter to court claiming their 1st Amendment right had been violated as Elon Musk proclaimed "Twitter serves as the de facto public town square", and the court rules in that persons favour, then as aforementioned it's not going to just affect Twitter where the 1st Amendment right will extend to, but all big tech companies that act like town squares or quasi public spaces.

 

Food for thought.

Edited by Mr Serendipity, 16 December 2022 - 01:12 PM.

[Hebbeh]

The discussion was your claim "people that spread misinformation is their right under the 1st Amendment to do so" and my point was how spreading misinformation worked out for Alex Jones in a court of law.  And spreading misinformation is exactly what he was guilty of.

[Mr Serendipity]

Read post #36, I answered you there.

Edited by Mr Serendipity, 16 December 2022 - 01:30 PM.

[Mr Serendipity]

I just looked up the Alex Jones case and it was a libel case, claiming the sandy hook parents were actors, so no it wasn't protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

As I wrote earlier:

 

 

I already knew the limitations to the 1st Amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court, but they are so few, that I didn’t bother bringing them up because they aren’t relevant to the subject we’re discussing. If the topic was about libel, slander, threats, then I would have posted the relevant information, but that’s not what we’re talking about here, we’re talking about how a US Government asking a US company to censor a US citizen is a clear violation of their 1st Amendment rights. 

 

You do understand misinformation is protected speech, libel isn't. Just because misinformation is in a libel case, doesn't make misinformation illegal.

 

Read the Stanford University quotes I posted (in post 36) which talks about the issues of free speech on vaccine misinformation. You do know Stanford University isn't just any university, it's rated the 3rd top university in the world!

 

If you can't understand their legal opinion on vaccine misinformation (which is written very clearly btw), then there's no way I could explain it any better.

Edited by Mr Serendipity, 16 December 2022 - 02:03 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The discussion was your claim "people that spread misinformation is their right under the 1st Amendment to do so" and my point was how spreading misinformation worked out for Alex Jones in a court of law.  And spreading misinformation is exactly what he was guilty of.

 

Alex Jones was sued in a civil court by private individuals for the consequences of his speech. He lost that civil suit and the plaintiffs were awarded compensatory and punitive damages that the jury decided were a result of defamatory (both libelous and slanderous) statements made by Mr. Jones.

 

He was not prosecuted by the government criminally.

 

In the US we enjoy the right to speak freely without fear of that speech being suppressed or our suffering retaliation at the hands of the government (at least that it is what our Constitution says and how it has worked historically).

 

We do not however have the right to say whatever we please without consequence.

 

What Hip is proposing is that unpopular or "incorrect" (as decided by the government) speech should be liable to criminal prosecution by that government. This is a whole different can of worms. In that scenario the government decides what is "truth" and what is therefore allowable speech.

 

Hip doesn't appreciate that the government frequently acts in the government's own rather than the people's interest. Therefore, the likelihood is that speech which is inconvenient to the government - for example talking about the possibility that a certain foreign lab which received government funding might have been the origin of a particular virus - would be subject to government sanction. Under Hip's proposed rules the government would be highly motivated and therefore highly likely to declare such speech untrue and therefore prohibited.
 

Hip has no understanding of the danger of ceding that sort of power to the government because he envisions that government being run by a cadre of wise and selfless intellectuals. Unfortunately history shows that governments actually get run by fallible and frequently venal people that care about their own self interests rather than the interests of society at large, and that humans are not by nature that wise and selfless and that politicians (because that is exactly who will ultimately make these decisions) are not particularly well equipped to arbitrate what is "truth".

 

It is Hip's lack of understanding of history and the inherent failings of humanity that leads him to his conclusion.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 16 December 2022 - 05:17 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Fair enough but as long as we're discussing it, in regards to criminal versus civil penalties in respect to consequences of suspect freedom of speech, what about the example of screaming fire or gun in a crowded venue where people are injured and/or killed in the insuing melee caused by the shout? And this is just one example of any number of similar situations. And stuff like this does happen because people think all speech is protected.

Edited by Hebbeh, 16 December 2022 - 03:17 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Yes, there are a few limits on free speech. If you have criminal intent and "malice aforethought" (i.e. a degree of planning with malicious intent) then that can become a criminal act.

 

So for instance - I can say to a crowd "I think Hip is a really bad person with foolish ideas" and that is protected speech. On the other hand, if I say "I think Hip is a bad guy, let's go beat him up", then that's not protected because it involves criminal intent.

 

There's a little bit of a myth that's built up around "yelling fire in a crowded theater". It isn't generally criminal but it can be specifically criminal.

 

So if there's a fire, of course that's not criminal. If I think there is a fire but I'm mistaken, that is also not criminal. If I plan on robbing the theater and go yell fire to create a panic to cover my crime and people are subsequently killed in the stampede, then that would be a criminal act. But, the government has to prove the criminal intent and it has to be a pretty direct action. So going back to my earlier example, if I say a lot of critical and even unkind things about Hip but don't call for violence against him, but someone listening to my speech then decides to go beat him up, that generally isn't going to be criminal. The government has to prove intent and that is a really high hurdle to clear.

 

So, if I say "vaccines don't work", and people listen to me and there is an argument that people subsequently died, that isn't going to be criminal in our system. The government would have to prove that I knew my information to be false and I had an intent to see people injured or I had a wanton disregard for the safety of others. That's virtually impossible unless someone documents it somehow. Otherwise you're trying to prove what's going on in someone's head.

 

Now, the above could be pursued civilly and someone might prevail in a case like that.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 16 December 2022 - 05:17 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Fair enough but as long as we're discussing it, in regards to criminal versus civil penalties in respect to consequences of suspect freedom of speech, what about the example of screaming fire or gun in a crowded venue where people are injured and/or killed in the insuing melee caused by the shout? And this is just one example of any number of similar situations. And stuff like this does happen because people think all speech is protected.

 

If I was ever in a crowded venue, & a fire broke out or shooter had pulled his gun, I would hope the right to free speech would apply, & all would be given fair warning.  

[Mr Serendipity]

https://en.m.wikiped...crowded_theater
Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout fire in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out. Similarly, state laws such as Colorado Revised Statute § 18-8-111 classify knowingly "false reporting of an emergency," including false alarms of fire, as a misdemeanour if the occupants of the building are caused to be evacuated or displaced, and a felony if the emergency response results in the serious bodily injury or death of another person. Somewhat more trivially, in some states it is a crime just to knowingly make a false report - or knowingly cause a false report to be made - of an emergency to emergency services. In the statute just cited, for example, it is a crime to knowingly cause "a false alarm of fire" to be transmitted to "any...government agency which deals with emergencies involving danger to life or property." This crime could plausibly be made out where, for instance, in response to the false shout, an innocent bystander calls emergency services to report the fire, and this is found to have been such a foreseeable response to the shouts that the shouter is deemed to have caused the false report to be made.

Edited by Mr Serendipity, 16 December 2022 - 04:26 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Regarding millennials shouting RACIST, every time they see a white male; “I wholly disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it”

Edited by Dorian Grey, 16 December 2022 - 04:22 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

You have a rather puerile way of discussing things. 

 

I don't think you really understand any of the points brought up on these issues of the post-truth society, misinformation, fake news, and so forth, which are pressing issues of the day.  

 

Oh, I understand these points quite well.

 

Are you telling me that we once lived in a society where "truth" (as understood by whom?) generally prevailed? I look at history and see no evidence of that. I see the same back and forth debate of people with differing interests, goals, and understandings with some trying to uncover the truth while others are trying to hide it.  It is as it has always been.

 

The thing is Hip, you refuse to acknowledge that "the science" is frequently not cut and dried and that people of reasonable intelligence and good will can differ on what the facts and the truth are. In your mind there is only one truth, we know what is it, and unsurprisingly it aligns with your take on it.

 

Science isn't like that. There is almost always controversy, things are frequently murky for an extended period of time, and the truth is only arrived at after often protracted periods of observation and debate. But you would short circuit that by saying the truth is fixed and known before hand and the government ought to go out there and enforce it and shut down the debate.

 

Also I note that while you criticize my way of discussing things you don't seem to be denying the meat of my take on your position.

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 16 December 2022 - 07:49 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Regarding millennials shouting RACIST, every time they see a white male; “I wholly disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it”

 

That used to be a principle on which the left and right generally agreed in the past. This is no longer the case.

 

I never thought I would see in my lifetime the widespread argument in favor of censorship in the West that we see today.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 16 December 2022 - 05:13 PM.

[Hip]

The thing is Hip, you refuse to acknowledge that "the science" is frequently not cut and dried and that people of reasonable intelligence and good will can differ on what the facts and the truth are. In your mind there is only one truth, we know what is it, and unsurprisingly it aligns with your take on it.

 

No, I acknowledge that in science there are complexities and degrees of uncertainty, and this is really the basis of my argument.

 

If you take something as complex as a pandemic, for the layperson to understand why governments and health officials made the policy decisions they did requires a good appreciation of infectious diseases, immunology, mathematics, and other disciplines. It also requires an appreciation that at any given moment during the pandemic, scientific knowledge of aspects of the unfolding situation may be only partial, and so scientific predictions or calculations made with this partial knowledge are subject to uncertainty. This is what intelligent people understand.

 

 

Yet online you find angry laypersons who only have minimal scientific understanding, yet vociferously slam what science has done or said during the pandemic. Such laypersons have an arrogant attitude that they know better than the community of scientists.

 

This to me is like a butcher holding up his meat clever, and claiming he knows more about intricate neurosurgery than professional surgeons. These loudmouth laypersons do not know very much about pandemic science, yet arrogantly pontificate as if they are experts. These type of laypersons are full of themselves, and seem to have no sense of the fact that they are dealing with a complex subject that is full of nuances. Even the experts do not show that level of arrogance. 

 

These pontificating laypersons seem to be driven to post online by their own conceited inflated sense of self. The think they are smarter than everyone. They are not interested in facts or nuance, or in taking time to learn and study their subject; in fact they have no love of learning; instead they use aggressive force of character to bludgeon through any inconvenient facts or nuances that get in the way of their narrative. 

 

This is the basis of a post-truth society: it is a society where the unknowledgeable manage to dominate the conversation, and bludgeon through any facts or with nuances with aggressive force. In other words, a post-truth society is one where aggression dominates over delicate facts. 

Edited by Hip, 16 December 2022 - 09:21 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

So only scientists are allowed to have a public opinion on scientific matters like the mask mandates or vaccines? Or at least, layperson are not allowed to publicly express an opinion not in keeping with the mainstream orthodoxy on these sorts of issues?

 

Spell it out - what exactly do you want to occur that is different than the current situation? You're certainly free to have whatever low opinion of the common man that you'd like, but what would you like to see done from a legal perspective that is different than today? How would Hip's ideal government/society be different than what we see around us now?

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 16 December 2022 - 09:25 PM.

[Hip]

So only scientists are allowed to have a public opinion on scientific matters like the mask mandates or vaccines? Or at least, layperson are not allowed to publicly express an opinion not in keeping with the mainstream orthodoxy on these sorts of issues?

 

Spell it out - what exactly do you want to occur that is different than the current situation? You're certainly free to have whatever low opinion of the common man that you'd like, but what would you like to see done from a legal perspective that is different than today? How would Hip's ideal government/society be different than what we see around us now?

 

You want me to instantly come up with a philosophy and policy that is the perfect remedy for all these problems with have in our society today. That's a tall order. The first step in finding a solution is to become aware of the nature of the problem in the first place.   

 

As I have pointed out before, most observers of society are aware that we are currently passing through a time of populism, where suddenly there is a strong distrust in experts and leaders of any sort (not just scientists, also economists, politicians, intellectuals, and what have you).

 

The dictionary defines populism as: "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups". So populism is a state when the public lose faith in their leaders. 

 

I think the issues I pointed out in my previous post above directly spring from the populist sentiment that has arisen right across the Western world in the last decade or so. 

 

The reasons for the populist wave are have been discussed in analytical newspapers and journals. Reasons include the fact that the working classes are getting raw deal from the current liberal globalist elites, so they have become distrustful of their leaders. Liberal globalisation has taken away manufacturing jobs from the working man. Then we have issues of soaring accommodation costs, and the fact that it now requires two salaries to buy a property (whereas 40 years ago, one salary was enough). And issues like multiculturalism and immigration, which although are great for the economy, have their downsides in that they dilute and confuse the national culture which was part of people's identities. 

 

So for these and other reasons, the populace have become distrustful of experts and leaders, and the direction these leaders are taking us. 

 

The only way to fix the distrust is to fix the social problems that have left people discontented. Once people are happy again with their lives, they naturally become more trustful of their leaders.

[Mr Serendipity]

Another Elon tweet about Fauci.
https://twitter.com/...280647937396736

 

”Much will come to light as Fauci loses power.”

Attached Files

•  F1A6143F-6622-433E-9DB0-874FDD851A8E.jpeg   398.19KB   0 downloads

Edited by Mr Serendipity, 18 December 2022 - 11:02 AM.

[Mr Serendipity]

Another one.

https://twitter.com/...356290674819077

 

“The tide is turning fast for the Faucists”

Attached Files

•  49FFE399-F110-4AD5-B033-4A876098F9CE.jpeg   351.62KB   0 downloads

Edited by Mr Serendipity, 18 December 2022 - 11:08 AM.

[Mr Serendipity]

Yet online you find angry laypersons who only have minimal scientific understanding, yet vociferously slam what science has done or said during the pandemic. Such laypersons have an arrogant attitude that they know better than the community of scientists.

You now have the worlds richest man and certified genius Elon Musk ranting about Fauci.

 

This guy literally had to self study and become his own chief engineer of his SpaceX program because the good ones that existed at the time didn’t want to be hired by him. His company eventually created their own rocket that can go into space and then come back again and land, which can then be reused again for future launches, it made aerospace history.

 

And this is only one of his many achievements he has done in his life. If anyone was an intellect who’s thoughts and opinions had credence on any subject, it would be his. He’s no layman. So when he’s going after Fauci, we should pay attention.

[Daniel Cooper]

But from what I can work out, your statement is wrong. The government asking Twitter to censor certain things does not violate the 1st Amendment. Only the government passing a new law forcing censorship would be a violation of the 1st.

 

Generally, the US Supreme Court has ruled against the government using "other means" to subvert protections in the Constitution.

 

You see, the amendment isn't so much about "passing laws" as it is about protecting the people from the government interfering with speech. That is it's clear intent.

 

There's been a pretty good argument put forth that the government has in essence "deputized" these social media companies and they are essentially de facto agents of the state, since they are doing the bidding of the government.

 

You don't get to say as the government "I'm not passing a law .... wink wink ... nudge nudge ... I'm just suggesting that you kick this person off your social media platform.

 

It's strange to me that people that are inheritors of the Western tradition of personal liberty recently seem so eager to cast all that aside.

 

[Daniel Cooper]

You want me to instantly come up with a philosophy and policy that is the perfect remedy for all these problems with have in our society today. That's a tall order. The first step in finding a solution is to become aware of the nature of the problem in the first place.  

 

You've been calling for people to be censored, fired, and prosecuted for expressing non-orthodox opinion on various aspects of the covid pandemic for the last nearly 3 years now. I just sort of assumed that you'd put some thought into this.

 

 

[Hip]

You've been calling for people to be censored, fired, and prosecuted for expressing non-orthodox opinion on various aspects of the covid pandemic for the last nearly 3 years now. I just sort of assumed that you'd put some thought into this.

 

Those calls are individual cases who deserve being taken to court for the deaths their ill advice caused. Just as others here in the opposing camp are calling for Fauci to be prosecuted (which I think is a baseless and stupid call). 

 

But none of this has anything directly to do with the bigger picture issue of solving of the current populist distrust of experts and technicians, and the related issues of fake news, misinformation and conspiracy theory that the Internet allows to be virally spread. These are issues that worry many intellectuals today.

 

I gave you my views on how we might deal with populism above. You might also like to contribute your own views or ideas on the subject.

Edited by Hip, 19 December 2022 - 03:28 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Those calls are individual cases who deserve being taken to court for the deaths their ill advice caused. Just as others here in the opposing camp are calling for Fauci to be prosecuted (which I think is a baseless and stupid call). 

 

But none of this has anything directly to do with the bigger picture issue of solving of the current populist distrust of experts and technicians, and the related issues of fake news, misinformation and conspiracy theory that the Internet allows to be virally spread. These are issues that worry many intellectuals today.

 

I gave you my views on how we might deal with populism above. You might also like to contribute your own views or ideas on the subject.

 

But surely these individual cases are a manifestation of some general philosophy you have? Or is your thinking rather ad hoc on this subject?

 

I'd hate to think that you simply want to silence people you disagree with or don't like.

[Hip]

You now have the worlds richest man and certified genius Elon Musk ranting about Fauci.

 

This guy literally had to self study and become his own chief engineer of his SpaceX program because the good ones that existed at the time didn’t want to be hired by him. His company eventually created their own rocket that can go into space and then come back again and land, which can then be reused again for future launches, it made aerospace history.

 

And this is only one of his many achievements he has done in his life. If anyone was an intellect who’s thoughts and opinions had credence on any subject, it would be his. He’s no layman. So when he’s going after Fauci, we should pay attention.

 

I know about Musk's history, and how he taught himself rocket science. Good engineer. Not necessarily a good scientist though. Different skillsets. Especially medical science, that's very different to mechanical engineering. 

 

I've never heard one scientific comment from Musk that has impressed me with his insight. In fact, I have not heard any scientific comments from Musk, period. He does not seem to have much interest in science.

 

Like he's developed these solar cell roof tiles, which I think are a great idea, and aesthetically pleasing. However, to really make advances in solar power, we need brilliant scientists who will discover how to make solar cells that are nearly 100% efficient. Musk has no interest in such science projects.   

 

Most solar cells used for home electricity production are only about 20% efficient. So the vast majority of the sunlight energy falling on these cells is wasted. If a scientist ever cracked the problem of creating cells with near 100% efficiency, it would solve most of our energy issues. 

 

 

 

In any case, what business is it of his to go after government officials? Why does Musk want to get involved in that? What has virology got to do with rocket science? 

 

That would be like Tony Fauci publicly criticising Musk every one of his Tesla cars kills someone on self-driving mode. 

[Hip]

But surely these individual cases are a manifestation of some general philosophy you have? Or is your thinking rather ad hoc on this subject?

 

I'd hate to think that you simply want to silence people you disagree with or don't like.

 

No, unlike many people on this forum who try to push their personal philosophy onto others, I prefer to find pragmatic solutions. Humans are rather obsessed by their favourite "isms", whether its a personal philosophy or a political ideology, and want to convince others that their chosen isms are right. I don't don't subscribe to that silly game. Life is too complex to fit within the parameters of any particular ism.