We recently discussed the rise of a generation of censors as young people embrace the role of government and corporate censorship. The erosion of free speech rights is manifest in a chilling poll from the Pew Research Center that shows a huge jump in favor of censorship among citizens with almost half now supporting the government barring “misinformation.” The shift is almost entirely among Democrats who (like Democratic leaders) now overwhelming favor fewer free speech protections and more government control over speech.
The poll shows 48 percent of survey respondents supporting government censorship of misinformation as compared to 39 percent in 2018.
Republicans have become more protective of free speech but the shift among Democratic voters is startling. In 2018, just 40 percent of Democrats supported censorship by the government and Big Tech. It is now 65 percent.
The poll reflects the move among Democratic politicians for years in calling for censorship. We previously discussed the unrelenting drumbeat of censorship on the Internet from Democratic leaders, including President-elect Joe Biden.
As previously discussed, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey appeared at a key hearing in which he followed up his apology for censoring the Hunter Biden story by pledging more censorship. One of the most chilling moments came from Delaware Senator Chris Coons who demonstrated the very essence of the “slippery slope” danger.
Dorsey: Well, misleading information, as you are aware, is a large problem. It’s hard to define it completely and cohesively. We wanted to scope our approach to start to focus on the highest severity of harm. We focused on three areas, manipulated media, which you mentioned, civic integrity around the election, specifically in public health, specifically around COVID. We wanted to make sure that our resources that we have the greatest impact on where we believe the greatest severity of harm is going to be. Our policies are living documents. They will evolve. We will add to them, but we thought it important that we focus our energies and prioritize the work as much as we could.
Coons: Well, Mr. Dorsey, I’ll close with this. I cannot think of a greater harm than climate change, which is transforming literally our planet and causing harm to our entire world. I think we’re experiencing significant harm as we speak. I recognize the pandemic and misinformation about COVID-19, manipulated media also cause harm, but I’d urge you to reconsider that because helping to disseminate climate denialism, in my view, further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world. So thank you to both of our witnesses.
Notably, Dorsey starts with the same argument made by free speech advocates: “Well, misleading information, as you are aware, is a large problem. It’s hard to define it completely and cohesively.” However, instead of then raising concerns over censoring views and comments on the basis for such an amorphous category, Coons pressed for an expansion of the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers “climate denialism”
There is, of course, a wide array of views that different people or different groups would declare “harmful.” Indeed, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to take the opposite meaning from Twitter admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said that he was “concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question:
“Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?”
“Robust content modification” has a certain Orwellian feel to it. It is not content modification. It is censorship.
This call has now been picked up by academics and members of the media.Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship.
Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images.
All the left does is add the word “denier” at the end of any “cause” they manufacture and that’s it, you are now marginalized, you’re not to be taken seriously, you are canceled. Of course if you’re not in the know, it goes back to phrase ‘Holocaust-denier’, that word has connotations beyond the topic you’re being accused of denying.. and that’s the point, the seed is planted.
As usual, the dominators create the system that destroys them. They censors can only create technical barriers that they intend to do the job for them. But, as we’ve seen, any good hacker can learn to corrupt and disable such a system. At the same time, the individual censors in the system will be publicly exposed. They’re not going to like it. The Public learns, eventually.
Free speech is great. But we need to hold people accountable when that speech leads to obvious problems. Take dear Trumps admonition to ingest a disinfectant to clean your body of COVID, Hold him accountable for those that followed his advise. likewise for the vaccine nay sayers. Have them pay for all those unvaccinated that are in hospitals and are dead. Easy enough.
Dribble and regurgitated leftist talking points. Is that all you got?
What’s dribble about having people be responsible for their speech? Please explain.
Trump and chlorine is a stupid lie easily disproven by reference to the video/audiotape.
I can’t believe what I’m reading. I can’t believe the world I’ve found myself in. In America, Americans saying they favor censoring free speech. “Newspapers” and magazines like “The National Enquirer” have been around for ages. They fill people’s head who read them with the most bizarre nonsense imaginable. But I always enjoy seeing them at the checkout line (I may be time traveling now not sure, no one wake me if I am) and seeing the wacky photos of alien’s removing Elvis’s appendix, or something equally wacky. And I’d never want anyone to say I couldn’t read one if I wanted. After all they were my first exposure as a boy to Von Danken and his theories on origins of life on earth and the early Egyptians and Mayans. I thought it interesting then and still do. True? Who knows. I read the Amityville Horror, claimed to be a true story. Most people think not. But I enjoyed reading it, ..sorta ha ha.
When I was a boy I read some books on Running. I read “The Joy of Running” by Dr. Thaddeus Kostrabala MD (that’s from memory so may have misspelled his last name) and I read the famous book by Jim Fixx “Running”. I also read lots of books on fasting, this new thing back then called “Yoga” , the Atkin’s diet, Arnold’s “The Education of a Body Builder”, Bruce Lee’s “The Tao of Jeet Kune Do”, ..
Can anyone see where I’m going here?
If this not so brave new world we’re moving towards gets here, none of those books would ever get published. They’d never make it past the censors. All of those books had some useful or even valuable information in them, along with some inspiration, etc. But they all had some “misinformation” in them as we’re calling it now as well.
Once the precedent is established the standard is just a slide rule and gauged by who’s holding it. I honestly can’t believe this is even happening, but its all a projection of the “right \ left” camps the citizens are allowing themselves to be buffaloed into. If people would start to think for themselves more things like this would never get off the ground.
It seems thinking for oneself is now prohibited – certainly on most college campuses, including the most famous campus, Berkeley, where the ‘free-speech’ movement is said to have originated in the 1960’s. Instead, we get the “Greta’s” of the world shaming those who do think for themselves (as I mentioned earlier today). It’s so terribly unfortunate. One day, I really hope to be there when young Kirsty or Sven realize they’ve been propagandized too far and stop just short of jumping off the cliff, then start pushing back against their ‘betters’.
Our personal freedoms and rights are under assault by the Dystopian Tyrants of the left. The assault on Freedom of Speech is a direct attack on opposing views held by the Tyrants.
The current effort to eradicate differing political or social viewpoints is directly counter to the Bill of Rights. The outcome of such a foolish notion is both pitiful and concerning. Pitifully: I feel sorry for the fools who think controlled speech will not be determinate of a dim future. Concerning is losing or surrendering any right that could lead to other rights also being lost. Once you release any freedom or right to a Tyrant it’s hard or impossible to re-obtain. History has not been kind to citizens who freely give their rights to others who can then dictate what you’re allowed to say or do.
The state of COVID we’re now enduring demonstrates how the Local, State and Federal level leadership has imposed rules and regulations usurping Constitutional rights without concern of the long term consequences, or at a minimum addressing when those rights involuntarily surrendered will be reinstated without delay. I have yet to see any statement from the Authorities when they think the Virus could be considered something we could live with, like the season flu or colds. What percentage of the population would be considered a success and measured what particulars? What we’ve seen from the supposed experts are generalizations, hyphenated facts, lots of Pollyanna sweet talk, many threats, and accusatory language toward others. When the State claims secrecy how is there any path to the truth without the underlying facts. I like to think I am not at the mercy of the state, but there is little to argue the state has begun, and is now proposing more regulations to arrogate our liberties without justification or vote, just arbitrarily dictating daily life.
Huxley offered sage insight: “So long as men worship the Caesars and Napoleons, Caesars and Napoleons will duly arise and make them miserable”
They always poll the wrong question
Would you support President Trump placing more restrictions on misleading information?
President Trump will appoint the new Ministry of Truth
Senator Cruz
Senator Paul
Mike Lee
Senator Cotton
Justice Thomas
Mark Levin
Congressman Nunes
Congressman Jordan
“It’s the [dominion of the Constitution], stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
Polls of parasites do not bear. That you don’t like it does not nullify the absolute freedom of the press. The American Founders gave Americans the one and only thing of significance and substance they could: Freedom. Shut the —- up and enjoy your freedom; go, be free, be self-reliant, endeavor, pursue happiness.
America is not an ochlocracy, serving up benefits and entitlements to parasites. America is a restricted-vote republic, turnout in the first election having been 11.6% by design. Government is not Santa Clause and America is not a wishing well. The dominion of the Constitution is primary and essential and it provides nothing but maximal freedom which requires self-reliance, while it severely limits and restricts government. The flavor-of-the-week of the teeming, parasitic hordes was not a focus of the Framers.
While a large fraction of Americans may amend the Constitution, the process is lengthy and difficult for good reason; it is not to be undertaken lightly. James Madison admonished that “…amendments desired…” are not to “…injure the constitution.”
To wit,
” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”
– James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
___________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
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.
_______________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Why stop with censoring “misinformation”? Just wait until the 1st Amendment is interpreted using CRT principles.
Former White House doc says Biden is incompetent.
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/08/20/fmr-wh-doc-gop-rep-jackson-biden-no-longer-cognitively-prepared-to-be-president-needs-to-resign
You might try to deny it but in your hearts you know it is true. Here is a test you can take:
A White House Spokesbabe said on CNN that Biden is “laser focused on Afganistan.”
Can you think or say that without laughing? Probably not.
Although I might go with Biden is Laser Focused on an icecream cone.
Nobody in the White Hose should use Laser Focused and Biden in the same sentence. They just highlight and remind us how demented he is.
Good for a laugh though.
Ahh the good old days when the president said…“Suppose that we hit the body with tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that it hasn’t been checked and you’re going to test it,” Trump said. “Suppose you can bring the light inside the body.” and, “Then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in one minute,” Trump continued. “Is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning? … It would be interesting to check that.”, Indeed, too bad he did not take his own advise.
Yes indeed, we need more clarity like this from our current president.
Advise or advice? Second time in this thread, so I doubt that it’s autocorrect
Trump wasn’t the first to come up with the idea of chemotherapy.
Polls also show increasing support for Socialism, and decreasing support for Capitalism. That should be impossible, if history was correctly taught.
People don’t appreciate what’s handed to them. They don’t appreciate freedom when they’ve never lived without it. When they haven’t been afraid the government would arrest them for criticism, they don’t appreciate freedom of speech. When they haven’t been censored for content mislabeled “misinformation” only for it to turn out to be true, then they don’t realize how important freedom of speech is.
If you ask someone, is it OK to lie, they will probably say, no. But if you asked someone, is it OK to censor someone who says something that undermines your authority, but it turns out to be true, they would probably say no.
People who don’t value their freedoms won’t fight to keep them.
Censor, census, senator, senetris, wishfully thinking, why this!
Of course, Turley would love you all to forget Trump and free speech issues. The Dear Leader, The Chosen One, The Stable Genius hated free speech, he endorsed attacks on protesters and imprisonment of the burning of the flag. He wanted limits to protest near the WH, and National Mall. He wanted to sue journalists that he called “scum” “slime” that reported his lies. he told PM of Canada “frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write” Threatened to cancel the broadcast licenses of media companies that offer negative coverage of him, Had WH press secretary call ESPN to fire reporter who criticizing him. And of course, called the news media ‘the enemy of the people” And the list could go on and on……
Now do a list for your Dear Leader Joe Biden.
“Republicans have become more protective of free speech but the shift among Democratic voters is startling. In 2018, just 40 percent of Democrats supported censorship by the government and Big Tech. It is now 65 percent.”
What Turley should have said is that Republicans are more protective of misinformation, because their only hope depends on it.
enignainblackcom
So, you and the Democrats can decide just what “misinformation” is. Turley is right, this is a slippery slope that will lead to what is done in China, North Korea, and others that rely upon “no dissent” to keep themselves in power. Unless you are ready to go that way, you should be more supportive of those who still value “free speech.”
I have the capacity to examine the evidence and recognize at least some of the misinformation put forth. One can value free speech yet not support free speech that literally leads to the death of others. Fire in a crowded theater and all that.
“Fire in a crowded building” is an alarm. It is very different from conveying facts or errors of fscts.
But the problem is choosing whom you would trust to decide what you are allowed to read or hear?
Sometimes it really isn’t that hard, sometimes it is harder than others. The guy that killed his kids last week based omn Qanon and illuminati theories of serpent DNA probably wished now that information hadn’t been out there.
But whom will YOU choose to decide WHAT YOU will be able to read, hear or watch?
That is the real censorship question. How about letting me do it. Tell me what you read and watch and view on the Web, give me a list, and I will tell you which are okay and which are prohibited. In the alternative you could let Google or Fascist Book do it. That should work. These are things you shouldn’t be allowed to decide for yourself or so the censors say.
I wouldn’t think to tell you what networks or news peoploe to watch though some have a much better record than others. I’ve gotten good information and bad from Fox News for example and the same from MSNBC. I could only watch the late Ed Shultz for a few minutes before turning away, I can watch Hannity even less. Hannity recently said the vaccine wasn’t effective because some vaccinated people still get the disease. That’s a dangerous statement and untrue. The vaccinated people who still have breakthrough cases, get them to a far lesser degree and represent a miniscule percentage of hospitalizations and I’m not aware of deaths. Hannity’s comments could/will cause people to die and should be retracted. If he continues to lie he should get sued along with the network that allows it. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to kill people.
Hannity’s comments could/will cause people to die and should be retracted.
Hannity provides opinion. And if you’ve actually watched him, you know that you left out a very important detail…he always tells the audience that he is not a doctor and to consult with their physician.
The problem with folks who favor censorship is that they believe that only views they don’t like will be censored.
They never imagine that views they cherish will be crushed under the censorship boot..
But they will be.
The relatives of the people he kills will feel much better learning his incorrect statements (lies) are just his opinion.
Here you go. Most cases in Israel, including serious cases, are vaccinated.
If you don’t like this link BING for information; there are many other references.
How do you know that Hannity is wrong and that you are not killing people with your misinformation? Should you be censored?
https://www.visiontimes.com/2021/08/08/israel-hospital-vaccinated.html
Right. Any evidence to prove Hannity has killed anyone based on his opinion? Not Cuomo numbers mind you, just one.
Olly- “Right. Any evidence to prove Hannity has killed anyone based on his opinion? Not Cuomo numbers mind you, just one.”
***
Hannity 0
Cuomo thousands
Enigma– I repeat, How do you know that Hannity is wrong and that you are not killing people with your misinformation? Should you be censored?
I can confirm that Hannity is wrong because of the data presented by the leading experts in the field which I’m fairly certain we can agree Hannity is not. In this day and age, one can find a source to document anything. I don’t throw out something purely because of the source but if it doesn’t follow journalistic standards and/or it isn’t a known commodity I know to dig a little deeper. The “Vision Times” for example doesn’t ring of credibility.
A more recent example of recklessness which should be bannen is the recommendation of Ivermectin, a livestock deworming drug that has led to multiple poisonings in at least Mississippi. Now whether the unwitting (dimwitted) users got that advice from Hannity, Tucker Carlson, or Laura Ingram, I can’t say as they have all been promoting it. I can’t prove their motivation, it has been proven they are dangerous and at least getting people hurt if not killed. Discouraging people from taking the vaccine is getting people killed and not just the people unwilling to take it. This bad advice is coming from people that have all been vaccinated so how sincere can they be?
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/568834-mississippi-officials-warn-against-using-ivermectin-for-covid-amid-spike
https://twitter.com/LamontC38810238/status/1428906713168613376/photo/1
Enigma: “I can confirm that Hannity is wrong because of the data presented by the leading experts in the field which I’m fairly certain we can agree Hannity is not”
***
If you had ever worked in a scientific field you would know that experts often differ. That isn’t bad. That is how science advances. When you choose someone as a sort of Pope of science whose opinions must be accepted, then you are into a sort of religion, not actual science. I think that is where you are now. But although you vaguely refer to ‘leading experts’ you don’t identify them and you don’t say why we should bow to their opinions.
When Trump said HCQ might help Covid patients he was attacked and the ‘experts’ denounced the drug and in some states, Nevada for one, pharmacists were threatened with loss of license if they dispensed the drug for Covid.
One of the harshest critics was LANCET one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. Guess what. Now that Trump is out of office they have backed down and published an article admitting that HCQ really does help Covid patients.
I imagine, from your posts, that YOU were one of those who denounced HCQ.
How many people died because they were denied a therapy that is now known to work. Many, probably thousands.
Race is important to you so perhaps you would listen to a Black and Democrat legislator from Michigan. She was dying of Covid and saw Trump on television recommending HCQ so she begged her husband to get it. He did, she took it, and she recovered, beginning almost immediately. She publicly thanked Trump for saving her life and she was attacked by the Democrat establishment for going off the dictated narrative. Here is a little about her: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/491612-democratic-state-rep-thanks-trump-and-hydroxychloroquine-for-recovery
You should consider that if your desire to censor ‘false’ information as experts and probably you thought it to be at the time she would never have heard Trump and she would be dead now. That would be on you and the other censors.
Something like the same thing is happening with Ivermectin. Here is published evidence from the National Institutes of Health saying that IVERMECTIN WORKS: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
That is an actual scientific study, not some infobabe on CNN or a bureaucrat with competing priorities.
But if you had your way this information would be censored because it does not fit the Democrat/Establishment narrative and you would never hear about it.
So, you CAN’T confirm that Hannity is wrong. You simply do not know. There is an approved narrative, but there is also a large amount of serious scientific study published in professional journals that say that we should be careful about leaping to conclusions. That was done with HCQ and many people died because of it.
TURLEY is absolutely right in opposing censorship. We all should. People should give INFORMED consent to the jab, and that information is defective when you allow–even encourage–others to control the information.
“The vaccinated people who still have breakthrough cases, get them to a far lesser degree and represent a miniscule percentage of hospitalizations”
***
I think Israel is reporting that their most serious cases are vaccinated.
You seem very sure of yourself.
I can usually pick out the people here who have some science background and those who are political.
Those political have no doubts. Those with experience in science are more careful, more skeptical, and more reserved in their judgments.
To: enigmainblackcom, August 20, 2021 at 5:24 PM
Demented people need very little impetus to perform crazy acts. Many will even rely on a voice in their head. Has there been a glut of such murders since that silly theory was published?
More insidious is when there is an official party line being promoted over and over through the media and official channels, without the opportunity for dissent or access to other opinions. That situation is just ripe for abuse by power-hungry politicians and their backers. If you cannot understand that, then I pray for your soul.
So you will be comfortable with all this following the Red Wave in 2022 and 2024? Be careful what you wish for
Someone has been drinking the Kool-Aid. When Trump is reinstated I’ll take it seriously.
Enigma,
Exactly. Trumpism needs a safe space to lie with no repercussions.
That’s perfectly backward. The Left is misanthropy presenting itself as the opposite. The Left *has* to lie.
The Right just wants to be left alone, free from aggression. That’s something every non-criminal can agree on.
The Right doesn’t seem to be leaving voting laws alone in 49 out of 50 states. The Right isn’t leaving women alone about controlling their bodies. There are those people the Right wants laft alone, rich people, that’s it.
More evidence that progressivism is actually regressivism. How far have we regressed? Well, take a look at the post-1763 period leading up to the revolution, we are reliving history. Kant describes these unenlightened people accurately:
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on–then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind–among them the entire fair sex–should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.
Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the nonage which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas, these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use–or rather abuse–of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting nonage. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from nonage by cultivating their own minds.
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html
Olly,
You have described Trumpists to a tee! Trumpists think and do whatever Trump tells them.
Damn Silberman, I didn’t expect you to resort to the Paint Chips “I know you are, but what am I?” retort. Nonage is not a good look for you.
I don’t exclude Leftists from Kant’s critique. I simply won’t allow you to imply that Trumpists are immune. Fair enough?
I don’t exclude anyone, including myself. What Kant describes is a universal truth about mankind. Censorship in all its forms is an anti-enlightenment tool to control the masses.
Olly,
Do I take it then you don’t believe in any censorship by government? Not even child pornography? Or incitement to imminent lawless action?
Are those your limits for government censorship?
You made the blanket statement that “Censorship in all its forms” is illegitimate. I am asking you whether there are no limits?
You made the blanket statement that “Censorship in all its forms” is illegitimate.
Nope. I said it’s an anti-elightenment tool to control the masses.
I stand by that statement. Now that I cleared up your disinformation (without the need for censorship), try answering my question.
I can see we are getting off to a bad start. Already you are accusing me of “disinformation” when I was simply attempting to clarify my understanding of your statement. Given your hostility, I won’t bother you in the future.
Already you are accusing me of “disinformation” when I was simply attempting to clarify my understanding of your statement.
So your attempt to clarify was not with a question about what I wrote, but to say I wrote something I never did. That’s unsurprisingly dishonest from you.
Given your hostility, I won’t bother you in the future.
🤣 yes, I might be a meanie by calling you out as the liar you are. You aren’t bothering me. It’s an honor to expose your disinformation.
You’re a real class act, Olly.
Olly, anyone can see you’re being disingenuous.
Silberman correctly pointed out a statement you made, “censorship in ALL ITS FORMS is an anti-enlightenment tool”
You clearly stated that ALL forms of censorship are tools of anti-enlightenment. By saying “all” you’re clearly referring to all of them. Silberman asked if that includes censorship of child pornography or inciting violence.
Your statement makes it clear you favor no limits. Do you stand by that point of view?
Your statement clearly implies that there shouldn’t be censorship of child pornography or inciting violence. Silberman was just making you think through your own blanket statement.
Should child pornography be censored?
Once again, I said in relation to Kant’s view of enlightenment; Censorship in all its forms is an anti-enlightenment tool to control the masses. Why was it necessary for you two to either misquote what I said or omit the full quote? The entirety of Kant’s article involves man having the freedom to exercise their capacity for reason and advance enlightenment thinking in our culture. If, as Kant suggests that the people rely on others to do their thinking for them (censorship), then they don’t develop the capacity to even question what they are being told. An enlightened culture doesn’t need child pornography or incitement to violence censored, as they will reason on their own what is not acceptable in civil society. They will in turn elect leaders that will enact laws that will punish those that will no doubt desire to violate the accepted norms of society.
So to be clear, when I’m talking about censorship, in all its forms, I’m talking about restricting the freedom of the citizens to develop the aptitude for right reason. And as we’ve seen, an unenlightened culture is not prepared to adequately exercise their power to prevent entities from weaponizing their institutions against the people. This is how you get today’s culture that will ignorantly accept abuse of power as long as they don’t feel they are the one’s being abused.
Olly,
“ Once again, I said in relation to Kant’s view of enlightenment; Censorship in all its forms is an anti-enlightenment tool to control the masses. Why was it necessary for you two to either misquote what I said or omit the full quote? ”
You omitted part of your own quote. You never mentioned you were referring Kant. Only after being questioned about your quote did you mention Kant. If that was your original intent then it’s your fault for not being able to make a clear argument in your first attempt.
You never mentioned you were referring Kant.
LOL! Other than the fact I began this thread with a quote from Kant and a link to his What is Englightenment article. Add to that, my comment in the thread that said What Kant describes is a universal truth about mankind. Censorship in all its forms is an anti-enlightenment tool to control the masses.
Oops! My fault I guess that you decided to jump into the middle of a thread and can’t read plain English.
Damn!
To jeffsilbermann, August 20, 2021 at 7:35 PM
Hold on a minute, there, Jeff. I am not living in the U.S., but even from far away, I could see that Trump was hardly “enabled” by the media, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and even many member of his own party in Congress–even by some members of his own cabinet.
In rather stark contrast to that situation, Biden (at least until the impossible to ignore Afghanistan debacle) has been given a free pass by the media, is protected by his party and cabinet, is coddled by Hollywood and Silicon Valley.
So, I can understand the psychology of a party-line partisan such as yourself unable to resist making pointless jabs at the ex-president’s supporters (many of whom, like perhaps the vast majority of ruled subjects around the world, are the immature demographic referred to by Kant), but to imply “fair enough” in light of the overwhelming bias toward the neo-leftist doctrine, now even seeping into the military after having infected the education system for years and years—seems a bit unbalanced.
I am not a particular fan of Trump, didn’t vote for him, and have no axe to grind on his behalf. The main reason I bother saying anything to defend his side at all is because I saw that he made enemies of many despicable people, and he faced much resistance and careful scrutiny when trying to push through his various agendas. I find it far preferable when politicians face opposition and the wheels of Congress are slow to move, compared to a totalitarian-style rubber stamp, law-passed-before-anyone-even-had-time-to-read-it, Patriot-Act type of situation.
Well said Edo.
Thanks…
Olde Edo,
It’s pointless to engage with someone like yourself on this blog because we see things so differently. Given a face-to-face interaction with a suitable social lubricant after hours of discussion, we might be able to reach some mutual understanding. I would welcome such an exchange if there were any Trumpists who lived around me. However, I would not waste my time with a Q-Anon believer, nor anyone who looked me straight in the eye and denied that Trump was a chronic and habitual liar. There has to be some intellectual honesty in order to stand any hope of a good faith discussion.
Silberman: “There has to be some intellectual honesty in order to stand any hope of a good faith discussion.”
***
Careful. That might rule you out for a discussion with anyone.
I would welcome trying to have good faith frank discussion with a Trumpist outside this blog.
Jeff S.,
Are there any counties near you that overwhelmingly voted for Trump? If so, perhaps you could drive there for a visit and strike up a conversation with someone in one of the local hangout spots (diners, ice cream shops, maybe attend a church that had a cafe).
Hi Prairie,
Counties north of where I live are more rural and conservative. I live in Marin County- just over the Golden Gate Bridge. I’ll try to find a Trumpist. Thanks for your suggestion!
Jeff S.,
They aren’t going to want to talk to you if you keep referring to Trump supporters as Trumpists. While on the gentler side, that label does still convey a tinge of contempt.
Prairie,
Trumpist is merely a shorthand for “a supporter of Trump.” Anyway, why should anyone be so offended? I am not offended by being called a “Leftist.” I think you are offended by the term because you don’t want to be so closely associated with Trump on account of his sexual degeneracy among other things. No one, but you, has ever complained to me being so called. I won’t call you a Trumpist, however.
Jeff S.,
“Counties north of where I live are more rural and conservative. I live in Marin County- just over the Golden Gate Bridge.”
You might consider taking a road trip into flyover country to hear what people think, if possible, too. Rural CA is going to look a fair bit different from rural Indiana, Idaho, Mississippi, or Oklahoma.
Prairie,
I have fantasized about taking a transcontinental train trip east and getting off at selected stops to get a sense of the common folk since I am disparaged by them as a coastal elite. I fear it would prove disastrous, for i have gotten a very good sense of what Trumpists think, and I don’t believe a conversation would prove fruitful.
There are only 2 people on this blog with whom I could have a profitable discussion, yourself and Paul. You two have shown some willingness to reconsider your positions.
I understand Trump’s appeal to the “forgotten man,” as well as their distaste (and mine) for Clinton. But as hard as it would be to suffer Hilary, Trump had been proven to be a chronic and habitual liar. He is a conman- Cruz, Rubio and Graham- all said so. They were telling the truth then. They just underestimated the ability of Trump to gain the confidence of the disenchanted.
H.L.Mencken prophesied Trump:
“On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
Mencken new more about the common folk than I ever will.
Jeff S.
Trump supporters may have very different perspectives than you on what constitutes lying by Trump. Do they consider some of what he says to be exaggerations? Why do they overlook some of these things? They will be intellectually honest if they feel like you are simply curious and are trying to understand them (understanding does not have to equal agreement).
Prairie,
No, there are some matters that are not open to a good faith debate. Trump’s abandoned fraudulent “University” proves it. His shuttered self-dealing Foundation confirms it. The litany of lawsuits by subcontractors for being stiffed. His cheating on his wives. The plethora of documented campaign and presidential lies, not to mention the Big Lie.
Prairie, Trump is an inveterate liar. I am as certain Trump is a conman as you are that there exists a god. It’s incontrovertible.
Jeff S.,
Again, why do/did many/most Trump supporters overlook/ignore some of these things? Despite these failings, what did he do to win their support?
Juxtaposing Hillary with Trump, I’d say lots of people did a coin flip over who was worse, overall, as an ‘inveterate liar’. Trump, at least, had not yet disgraced himself as an elected official. I am answering as an observer, not a Trump supporter. I am sure there are things Trump supporters would point to that won their support that I have not thought of or considered a ‘selling point’.
Prairie,
I have no doubt that Trump was regarded as the lesser of 2 evils as most people do justify their vote nowadays. I simply don’t regard lying as lightly as Trumpists do. I can’t forgive lying even if it is a bad means to a good end. I want none of it. Whether you believe me or not, I was in favor of Clinton’s impeachment for lying to the American public about his affair. Once a liar, any and all of his campaign promises can’t be trusted. Trump will go down as one of the worst presidents in history- deservingly so.
Turley– “overwhelming favor fewer free speech protections and more government control over speech.”
***
Because governments have historically been the only source for the truth.
Young,
“Because governments have historically been the only source for truth.” Really? Is that what you actually meant to say?
If you knew Young, that was clearly meant as sarcasm.
Clearly.
Stop voting Democrat. It’s that easy. Doesn’t mean you have to vote Republican. I’ll say it again because it is ingrained: STOP VOTING DEMOCRAT. Overwhelm them to the extent that it doesn’t matter how they cheat. Anyone that still thinks this is ‘just how it turned out’ is not using what is between their ears. Nobody intelligent can be so obtuse about what they dems have become. We can stop it or suffer. It’ simple.
Just ask those who favor censorship whether they would be happy with the censor being someone whose politics they disagree with.
Told ya!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/surprise-patsy-behind-yesterdays-dc-bomb-scare-says-fake-bomb-built-yalls-people-given-inoperable
I ssid there was a good chance this is another fake bomb. It is.
The only surprise is that Pelosi and DOJ aren’t proclaiming another insurrection.
Dems, media, and fascists (but I repeat myself) have beaten the Trump drum for so long that many Americans think trashing the Constitution is OK.
Morality aside, self preservation would suggest caution.
The pendulum will swing back.
Imagine being a Lefty when a Joe McCarthy leads an angry electorate to punish the Left.
Bet a robust Constitution would be much appreciated.
Said by a guy who would seem to be clueless about what’s been going on since 9/11.
Anonymou,
you seem to be the only one who is clueless about so many things…I lost count.
Sure. Because some yahoo who calls himself ‘Charles Chap’ says so. From now on, we’ll call you Charles ‘The Clueless’ Chap.
And some other clueless person “liked” the comment.
Turley, you’re a magnet for these idiots.
OK, so that’s the most frightening thing I’ve read recently. Free speech was good as long as the liberals were using it to achieve their agenda. Now that they have, time to shut down dissent. Frightening. China has won. Mao would be proud of their patience.