San Diego Proposal On Combatting Covid “Misinformation” Triggers Free Speech Concerns

There is growing controversy in San Diego after the county board of supervisors introduced a proposal to declare “health misinformation a public health crisis” and enact measures to try to “combat” views deemed untrue or misleading. As a free speech advocate, I do not share some of the objections made to the proposals. However, one item is deeply concerning.

On its face, the proposal calls for government agencies to combat bad information with better information on Covid. I have no problem with such informational programs. Even if people disagree with the government’s view of vaccines or mandates, they are free to voice their opposing views in the exercise of free speech.  For example, while I opposed the Big Gulp laws and laws barring certain foods or advertising, I have always recognized the legitimate (and often positive) role of the government in highlighting what it views as good science or good practices.

What concerns me is this item:

“e). Partner with federal, state, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, research, and other local entities to identify best practices to stop the spread of health misinformation and develop and implement coordinated recommendations.”

There is a difference between countering and stopping misinformation. The latter has been a focus of Democratic members in Congress in seeking to censor opposing views on subjects from election fraud to climate change to Covid.  Direct censorship from “federal, state, territorial” offices would be subject to First Amendment challenges. However, the proposal also makes specific reference to private and other entities which would be enlisted to combat misinformation.

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” is the new Orwellian term for censorship.

The focus of the government needs to be combating what it views as bad speech with better speech, not trying to prevent or silence those deemed to be misleading others.

Here is the proposal: Board Letter

 

82 thoughts on “San Diego Proposal On Combatting Covid “Misinformation” Triggers Free Speech Concerns”

  1. You and some of your pals also do your best to be unpleasant, but I hope that you don’t develop Covid, which is a much greater risk than vaccination.

    1. No, it’s not, and you’re stupid.
      Nothing called COVID 19 has ever been isolate din a lab, proven to exist, or shown to actually cause disease in humans.

  2. This government’s plans to censor free speech is especially heinous because the government’s objective is to control the narrative solely to force their purported “information” on the public–which is really disinformation, propaganda, and simply lies. Government in all of its forms has a long and dangerous history of using its power to lie to the public. Their message is manufactured to falsely convey that their actions are for the “public welfare.” But should you greet the government when it tells you, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”? Or should you run? Let’s take a trip down memory lane for the answer with the 1976 60 Minutes segment below, which includes government sponsored commercials. But, there are two things of which I must alert you to. One, this segment comes from an era when the media actually practiced real journalism from time to time, unlike today’s current presstitutes. Two, YouTube has already put this video under their “Watch List” for deletion. You can determine this for yourself by trying to search for it using YouTube’s own search engine. You won’t find it and the segment will remain buried, “thanks” to YouTube’s algorithm. You can even enter the exact title of the video in the search terms, but it still won’t come up among the search results. So, if the link fails to work in the future, you’ll know that the YouTube censors have permanently deleted the truth.

  3. Funny how all you zeig heil pro vaxers will not recognize any of the serious issues & flaws of this whole toxic blue jab scheme. Now it seems it’s minimally 3 jabs ,,,and likely more ( says something about the literal ineffectiveness no ?) . VAERS is chock full of maiming and death due to these EUA jabs. By any definition of past history ANY such jab would have been halted long ago with such an international let alone stateside plague of issues people are suffering and dying from with these blue jabs. When such virologists with enough honesty start looking into these jabs….we are seeing them saying how the control groups of study have been deliberately compromised…what are they hiding ?. You start hearing them describing that the process and the drugs themselves are at best borderline placebos. When people given these jabs appear to have a virus load 251 times that of those naturally infected. Something is wrong here…and some of the sheeple are starting to awake.
    The efficacy of these jabs is a sham…. nothing like big pharma submitted (aka lied about ) . Poor Israel is suffering because of these ineffective experimental drugs. The bait and switch with the Pfizer “vaccine” approval and what has really been approved has not even been manufactured yet…but they are demanding you keep on with the experimental jab whilst big farma still has no legal obligation for deaths and injuries from it. It’s a mess reading the FDA& NIH approval on this toxic jab…and it’s intentional as these lawyers don’t make such mistakes unless they are looking for the vague confusion to keep the lie(s) afloat until the next round of jabs.
    When Fauci at the CDC allows approval to the FDA after the nod from the NIH… whom is headed by none other than Fauci’s wife…yeah a little bit of conflict of interest /collusion there ?. The fish smells rotten in Denmark and DC…your nose is not lying to you !.

    1. You are one of the people spreading disinformation.

      “Now it seems it’s minimally 3 jabs ,,,and likely more ( says something about the literal ineffectiveness no ?)”

      No. Hepatitis B vaccination is also a series of 3, as is rabies preexposure vaccination.

      “people are suffering and dying from with these blue jabs”

      Very few, especially compared to those suffering and dying from Covid.

  4. Scientists and medical providers live in a world of “The studies suggest” and other such “best fitting line” guidances. Evidence Based research is graded for reliability after careful literature reviews. There is rarely anything in the scientific research world that is settled.

    What we are witnessing is a power grab under the guise of science. Politicians and and the powerful have leveraged the disruption to gain control. They are drunk with raw power. This is a cult method of brainwashing. The military also employs a similar method with new recruits.

    We are watching classic psychological warfare in motion. Big tech is modifying what people can search out or discuss.

    I just started rereading George Orwell’ 1984 and (using Professor Turley’s often used expression) the parallels to the post COVID world “chilling.”Orwell perceived the dark side of humanity and he nailed it.

    Remember that our President, the Commander in Chief and his advisors were defeated not by F-15s and nukes as he recently told us that it would require, but by a relatively small and determined group of terrorists with goats and traditional Soviet and Chinese arms. Not only that but as a bonus prize or President gave them enough arms to last the terrorists for decades to come. Soon, they will open a chain of Army surplus stores around the region.

    Remember, these are our fearless leaders. They truly embody Orwellian “Double Speak.”

    Studies suggest that the vaccine lowers a person’s risk of being hospitalized and vented. Studies also suggest that underlying medical conditions make things far worse, including obesity. Studies suggest that many people have delayed ongoing medical care and are now showing up at the clinics and hospitals with advanced diseases because politicians and bureaucrats scared the crap out of the general public. Studies also suggest that our government sponsored gain of function research in China. Was it released on purpose or was it an accidental release are the only two questions.

    If it is discovered that the bureaucracy is on the wrong side of science will they sanction themselves?

    What needs to be taught in school is how to detect BS and to study the mechanics of how the powerful and professional disrupters employ nefarious mind control techniques on the public at large. How to detect real misinformation. To always question, never trust. Verify. Search out the sources that are beyond Google and Wikipedia. There are big dollars for those who fan the flames of dissent and stir up unrest. These are the professional haters who should be identified and shunned.

  5. Inevitably when censorship of speech by social media is brought up in this forum someone writes that they are private companies and they have a right to ban whoever they want. Here are some owners of private companies who did whatever they wanted. https://i0.wp.com/jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_Bosses_of_the_Senate_by_Joseph_Keppler.jpg?ssl=1. The same private company argument was used in the days of the Robber Barons. As Bill Mayer recently said “why are they no longer teaching history.

    1. “when I looked for this with Google it didn’t come up”

      What search terms did you use?

      I just tried covid vaccination woman loses limbs, and the Daily Mail’s article about her was the second Google search result for me. It’s hard for me to believe you checked much before concluding “it didn’t come up.” Maybe you’re just bad at searching for information.

      Her husband said that she tested positive for Covid a few days after her second vaccination, during the period when you don’t yet have full vaccine protection. Yet you claim it’s an “experimental result from Phizer vaccine” rather than a result of Covid itself. An unsupported conclusion on your part.

      Are you truly a lawyer who is this sloppy with details?

      1. Loss of hands and feet isn’t one of the usual consequences of contracting Covid. It is notorious for attacking the lungs and other organs.

        This woman’s problems look more like the conditions seen in diabetics whose circulatory systems have been compromised. It is also consistent with problems with clotting already seen with some of these vaccines and which, in fact, was the reason Germany and others have paused on the use of at least one of them. I would add that some experts had predicted clotting and strokes as potential risks but they were ignored and banned by the Tech Hippies in California.

        It shouldn’t be difficult to think that the vaccine [with known clotting problems] was more likely to cause this woman’s problem than to conclude that the China Virus that does not present clotting problems was the cause.

        1. “Loss of hands and feet isn’t one of the usual consequences of contracting Covid. ”

          They’re not a usual consequence of vaccination either. We’re not discussing “usual” consequences. We’re discussing *possible* consquences.

          “vaccine [with known clotting problems] ”

          AFAIK, Pfizer (the specific vaccine she got) is not associated with clotting problems, but if you have evidence that it has known clotting problems, present it.

          “Virus that does not present clotting problems”

          On the contrary, if you search PubMed, you’ll find quite a number of articles that discuss clotting problems associated with Covid-19.

          1. “On the contrary, if you search PubMed, you’ll find quite a number of articles that discuss clotting problems associated with Covid-19.”
            **
            I did check and that is true.

            1. Sure, if you’re an idiot that would believe “PubMed”.
              Might as well ask the CDC or Wikipedia. They’re both super truthful, too!
              #sarc

    2. I also noticed very significant differences in search results between Google and DuckDuckGo. Google is obviously applying censorship.

      1. Olde Edo– Yes, I have noticed it too when using identical search terms in Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo, particularly when the search touches on information they don’t seem to like. Google doesn’t always eliminate it altogether but can bury the result so far down that you are unlikely to see it. Another approach is to provide the information only when requested with narrow search terms as Anon says he does. Most of us don’t do that and a less precise search used in a hurry will bring up results in Bing at the top of the page but not in Google. Even Bing is not entirely trustworthy. When I searched for something related to Covid the bottom of the page said certain search returns were deleted. Those deleted terms likely were what I was looking for. I knew they existed because I had seen them before and decided to have another look. Apparently Big Tech had other ideas.

  6. The right to speak your mind is a basic human right.

    In addition, how many times has a story deemed “misinformation” turned out to be true, just within the past year? Yet social media censored us from even discussing it.

    Giving the power to any particular entity to censor our speech is destructive to our individual freedom. We know how this kind of censorship ends. Before long, it criticism of the government, or the media, or the social media, or whomever we’ve granted this power, will become censored and punished.

    In light of these glaring trends, it’s absurd to claim those who support limited government and strong individual rights, are Fascist. We’re part of the last resistance against totalitarianism. Tea might end up in the harbor one evening.

    1. “Giving the power to any particular entity to censor our speech is destructive to our individual freedom.”

      If you don’t want a private company to have that power, don’t use their products. Use the public square. But you cannot legally require a private company to provide a megaphone for you to say whatever you want in public.

      ” it’s absurd to claim those who support limited government and strong individual rights, are Fascist.”

      I think it’s absurd to think that the people who say they want limited government really want limited government. Many are the same people passing restrictive anti-abortion laws and restrictive immigration laws, for example. Everyone wants the government to be limited on some things and not others; people just don’t agree about what falls in which category.

      1. If you don’t want a private company to have that power, don’t use their products. Use the public square. But you cannot legally require a private company to provide a megaphone for you to say whatever you want in public.

        Which is true.

        But we can hold private companies to the offers they make.

    2. Karen propounds:

      “The right to speak your mind is a basic human right.”

      BUT speaking one’s mind does NOT entail the right to be heard.

      Fox News is currently being sued for defaming Dominion and Smartmatic for spreading the lies of Trump’s lawyers who have been sanctioned by a court of law and have been referred to their respective ethics boards for disciplinary actions for perpetuating a fraud! Having been served the lawsuit, Fox broadcasted a legal disclaimer attempting to disassociate itself from these defamatory statements. Thereafter, Fox has ceased reiterating the “Election was stolen” narrative. Trump lawyers are no longer welcome to appear on Fox to- dare I say it- “speak their mind.” Mike Lindell is pulling his advertising on Fox because it would not allow him to advertise his cyber symposium: https://deadline.com/2021/07/my-pillow-mike-lindell-pull-ads-fox-news-1234802872/

      They ALL have been censored! Yet, you claim that, “[g]iving the power to any particular entity to censor our speech is destructive to our individual freedom.”

      Would you not THEN say that Fox News is destroying Trump’s and Lindell’s freedom to contest the legitimacy of the election? And is it not hypocritical that our free speech maven Turley has NOT lambasted his very own network for censoring them?

    3. Addendum:

      It should be obvious, but I’ll state it anyway, Turley knows all too well that Fox is not acting as a “totalitarian” by refusing to air Trump and Lindell’s “bad speech” despite his insistence that the ONLY way to combat bad speech is with better speech. He knows that Fox has a slew of lawyers to vet all its programming to ensure there is an absence of defamatory malice in its broadcast content. Bad OPINIONS are a different matter, provided that they are not substantiated by defamatory statements.

    4. Before the Food and Drug Act of 1938, our country had a big problem with frauds and scammers who sold “patent medicines” and bogus medical devices. These grifters knew that many maladies are self-healing, and that if they could get people to take their “medicine” at the right time, by overlooking coincidence it would be perceived as the “cure”. Then, you peddle these testimonials aggressively to amp up sales.

      It turns out that there are scientific ways to determine efficacy and safety of drugs and devices. And when these became required by law in 1938, the fakery market dried up, or at least was denied use of mass media marketing (magazines and later TV).

      Under FDA Law, you cannot make claims about the safety or effectiveness of drugs or devices as their vendor until you run the gauntlet of clinical testing. Isn’t that censorship? YES. And, because it posits a neutral, scientific, truth-gathering process, it disallows government to misuse those powers arbitrarily.

      The same analysis can be applied in dozens of areas. The law censors intentional, self-interested, deceitful misinformation in testifying in Court, preparing your tax return, selling Securities, testing automobile emissions (take that VW), applying for Citizenship and other benefits, counting and reporting election results, identifying your ship or airplane, making declarations on import/export or postal shipments, product warranties, fraudulent contracting, identity frauds, voter frauds, espionage covers, wire frauds (phishing, cyber-extortions), impostering as a police officer, selling counterfeit products and art….I could go on for another 1/2 hour.

      Bottom line, most intentional deceptions waged on strangers in commerce, law, medicine, and finance are both illegal, and there are deterrents which amount to censorship.

      Let’s stop pretending that the 1st Amendment affords some imagined right to wage deceitful misinformation campaigns. If we don’t take reasonable steps to purge the airwaves of deceitful trash, we’ll be making bad decisions going into the future. We have to figure out a means to encourage responsibility and respect for quality information, and protect the freedom of inquiry and expression needed for good-faith reformers and improvers to operate.

      1. “We have to figure out a means to encourage responsibility and respect for quality information . . .”

        That’s code for: The government needs a Speech Czar.

        The rest of your equivocation amounts to: The government bans fraudulent products and contracts, and perjury. So why can’t it ban fraudulent ideas? With the obvious reply being: Because ideas are *not* products, contracts, or courtroom testimony.

  7. Germany and other European countries appear to be suspending use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of blood clotting injuries.

    https://apnews.com/article/germany-suspends-astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clotting-0ab2c4fe13370c96c873e896387eb92f

    The vaccines are still experimental.

    Protecting us from ‘misinformation’ may destroy true informed consent and cost lives i wonder if those harmed by the AstraZeneca vaccine were allowed to hear about risks they were facing?

    1. The AstraZeneca vaccine never got Emergency Use Authorization in the US.

      “i wonder if those harmed by the AstraZeneca vaccine were allowed to hear about risks they were facing”

      Read the AstraZeneca fact sheet provided to people in Germany.

      1. Anonymous – – ‘Fact Sheets’ are not a reliable way to provide informed consent. Too detailed and too intimidating for most people.

        The provider has a responsibility to inform a patient of risks and consequences of any procedure in terms that the patient can understand. This has been litigated many times. Read ‘Canterbury v. Pence’ to get the general idea.

        1. Here’s what the Pfizer fact sheet looked like when I was vaccinated: web.archive.org/web/20210501094034/https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download

          Quote an example from it that you believe most people cannot understand and rewrite it in a way that you think most people could understand and such that their consent would still be informed.

          1. Anonymous– Explain it to the lady with no hands and feet.

            In any event, you don’t understand legal informed consent. One of the first things you learn is that it is NOT just a signed form. As I said, the ‘provider’ needs to give the risks and consequences in terms the patient can understand. What if you have the Pfizer fact sheet signed and tucked away in your chart and it turns out your patient speaks Romanian and couldn’t understand a word? What if your patient is illiterate? What if your patient has other disabilities impairing understanding?

            Your stupid fact sheet is not enough to protect you from liability. And it does not satisfy your duty to your patient.

          2. Anon– I just read your ‘fact sheet’. It mentions risks and ‘benefits’ not ‘risks and consequences.’ That may be only a minor omission at the present but I think I would be more concerned that the adverse reactions are described as allergic reactions. I doubt ‘allergic reaction’ covers the heart problems now being reported or the problems with blood clotting resulting in strokes or loss of adequate blood supply to extremities as in the article I linked above where the lady lost her hands and feet.

            You would like me to suggest something more to be added to it? Start with warning of heart problems, circulatory problems, and strokes for a beginning.

            They are only rare if you don’t get any of them. If you do, they aren’t so rare.

            1. “as in the article I linked above where the lady lost her hands and feet”

              You mean the article that notes she was diagnosed with Covid and MIS-A, yet you’re assuming the complications to be effects from the vaccine rather than known possible complications of Covid and MIS-A?

              “Start with warning of heart problems, circulatory problems, and strokes for a beginning.”

              Start by providing evidence that the Pfizer vaccine is associated with “heart problems, circulatory problems, and strokes.” If you can’t even read your short article attentively, I have no reason to trust you on anything else. Make sure that your stats show a rate above the rate in the placebo group.

              I linked to the fact sheet from April (that’s the one that was used when I was vaccinated). It has been updated since then.

              1. The updated Fact Sheet does say “Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the
                lining outside the heart) have occurred in some people who have received” the vaccine.

                That’s good.

                They also say:

                “These may not be all the possible side effects of the vaccine. Serious and unexpected
                side effects may occur. The possible side effects of the vaccine are still being studied in
                clinical trials.”

                So, clinical trials are still going on and there may be “serious and unexpected” side effects that may be revealed in the trials or, for that matter when your hands and feet fall off or you die.

                As they ‘update’ their Fact Sheet I find it less reassuring than it was before. What next?

              2. Anonymous, You asked me to “Start by providing evidence that the Pfizer vaccine is associated with “heart problems…”

                Okay. Read the Pfizer Updated Fact Sheet,

              3. Anon– Although you usually try your best to be unpleasant I do hope that your vaccination does not lead to “serious and unexpected” side effects that may be revealed” as described in the updated Fact Sheet.

                I hope nobody gets those side effects. The whole business is worrisome no matter whether one gets the vaccination or decides not to get it and I have never said anything on this site other than that each person needs to make his own decision after careful review and in consultation with his doctor.

                However, now that the heart problems have emerged together with evidence of clotting problems, we should also be on the watch for those problems that may [not will] emerge over the longer term. Some experts have described a mechanism for future injury but that is something only the future will reveal, nobody knows for sure.

                In any event, good luck. It’s in and you can’t get it out.

                1. My response — jonathanturley.org/2021/08/29/san-diego-proposal-on-combatting-covid-misinformation-triggers-free-speech-concerns/#comment-2117679 — was decoupled from this subthread.

    2. Not to forget Japan just stopped the moderna toxic blue jab to absolutely visual contamination with metallic particles. As well the Japanese are now recognizing Ivermectin as safe , effective and useable in their covid battle. Big pharma is likely very very mad at the Japanese !,

  8. “All this bull—- and they ain’t fixed it yet!”

    – Anonymous
    ___________

    SHALL NOT ABRIDGE
    __________________

    That one disagrees with any or all speech, does not alter or nullify the Constitution.

    The rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities provided by the Constitution are the immutable possessions of individuals, not government.

    The American Founders did not qualify the freedom of speech.

    The freedom of speech is absolute.

    No court or level of government has any power to modify the Constitution, outside of the Amendment process described by the Constitution.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    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.

    1. Use several hours of your spare time to acquire extra $1000 on your paypal account each week… Get more details on following site…

    2. Use several hours of your spare time to acquire extra $1000 on your paypal account each week… Get more details on following site…gg.gg/vv1g7

  9. There’s no such thing as misinformation. There are people who don’t do their due diligence when forming a personal protocol. If you are getting your health information from social media instead of a health professional, you are an idiot. If you need the government to
    ” protect” you from ANY information you are a weak lap dog. Grow a spine. “Misinformation ” censorship is the tool of those who seek to secure their power over the populace.
    Don’t let that happen!!!

        1. It’s rather ironic that the same person who claims “There’s no such thing as misinformation” then calls someone “hopelessly misinformed.”

          1. It is in the context of commenting on a legal blog. Which this is. I know that misinformation is a word. But my point is how it is being used to censor. A free speech issue. If someone CHOOSES to be misinformed that is their right. No matter how gullible or intellectually weak they may be. But for those who wish to educate themselves, no entity especially the government or one of their proxies( see Facebook ,Twitter) should limit their options.
            BTW, from a legal standpoint, there is no such thing as hate speech either.

            1. Misinformation exists in the world, and it’s counterproductive to falsely claim “There’s no such thing as misinformation.” Better to make a truthful argument about it.

              Facebook and Twitter are not proxies for the government. They are legally free to censor content if they wish, as they are private companies. If you don’t like their Terms of Service, don’t use them. I don’t have accounts with either of them, though I do sometimes read things on the public portions of their platforms.

              1. Not officially proxies. But Psaki stated that the Administration would supply Facebook with things that they deemed misinformation and should be prohibited. What would you call that? I know that they are private entities. And they have the right to state their own guidelines. But they certainly are not the unbiased platforms that they portend to be.
                Their Section 230 protections should absolutely be rescinded.
                And maybe you don’t understand my position. My truthful argument is I know that misinformation exists. But it is only misinformation for those who allow it to be.

                1. “What would you call that?”

                  I’d call that the government having the same ability to flag things that all other users have.

                  “Their Section 230 protections should absolutely be rescinded.”

                  They’d do more censoring in that case.

                  “it is only misinformation for those who allow it to be.”

                  Unfortunately, many do allow it to be. They have a right not to inform themselves, but that doesn’t mean that a megaphone should be given to those who wish to misinform them, especially for a communicable disease.

                  1. Ok let me try this one last time.
                    Things termed ” misinformation ” should never be used as a reason for censorship.
                    Information on Hunter Biden’s laptop was censored as misinformation on Twitter was censored, until it wasn’t.
                    The theory that the virus came from the Wuhan lab was misinformation on Facebook was censored, until it wasn’t.
                    Both of these things were purged for political reasons.
                    If someone whats to state that the moon landing was fake, so what? Do your own research.
                    If someone wants to say aliens built the pyramids, so what? Do your own research.
                    Unless you are organizing violence, free speech should be protected
                    Always!!

                    1. With few exceptions (such as defamation), you have a right to say whatever you want in the public square. You do not have a right to use private companies to amplify your message. Private companies regularly restrict that amplification. I don’t have a right to go on Fox News to get my message out to their viewers. You do not have a right to post certain kinds of comments here (Darren will delete comments with the n- word, for example). You’re welcome to your belief that “Unless you are organizing violence, free speech should be protected Always!!,” but that belief is inconsistent with our laws when it comes to amplifying speech via private companies.

                  2. “I’d call that the government having the same ability to flag things that all other users have.”

                    Except that the government has one thing that private users do not have: A police force. With the ability to fine you and deprive you of your liberty.

  10. People in San Diego literally live under a hostile occupation. The State in California bussed in a bunch of illegals and gave them voting rights in Orange County. That wiped out Republican officeholders.

    That is the plan for the whole rest of the country. Expect exactly the same where you live someday.

    In years to come, don’t be surprised when the Deep State in D.C. will allow people in Zimbabwe to vote in American elections just because they have relatives here–or whatever. I’m sure the Mugabes of the world will make sure they vote Democrat in exchange for “foreign aid.” Whatever it takes to secure the one-party dictatorship.

    You dumb asses who support no borders will regret it someday but IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR YOU OR ANY OF US. Too bad you’re too stupid and shallow to see how evil this is. You are a disgrace to the human race. You are living proof that 80% of humanity is too incompetent to manage democracy.

    1. Correction, I meant San Diego County, not Orange County, but the same thing is happening in both counties.

  11. The first step is a call to censor. The second step is a call to incarcerate. A penalty is inferred for non-compliance. These ideas have always been expressed in history by those who believe in centralized control. I leave it to you to determine which political party in America is the party that is constantly calling for more centralized government. The latest is an attempted to control voting for the entire nation by the federal government. Censor the public and eliminate states rights is the agenda necessary to obtain the power they envision. They know exactly what they are doing. It comes from a philosophy that the elite should make all the decisions. See the kingdoms of history.

  12. The problem with science “Misinformation” is that science is never truly settled except for perhaps certain laws of physics. Evidence the researcher who argued that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria – not stress and for bucking the prevailing wisdom he was labeled a quack for nearly a decade until someone decided to actually try to duplicate his work and found that he was indeed correct.

    I worked as a neurophysiology research assistant at a medical college and one of the first things my boss taught me was the basics of ferreting out good science from bad science and there is plenty of bad science out there – reference the Lancet having to retract a widely promoted by the MSM paper on HCQ or the Journal of Applied and Fundamental Sciences having to retract 400 papers at once, or seeing the colluding to suppress opposing viewpoints through influencing the peer review process as evidenced by the Climategate emails between Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et al.

    If one holds an open mind and uses the most powerful research tool ever invented right there in the palm of their hand, one finds NIH studies finding that HCQ, zinc, and Ivermectin as having significant beneficial effects when used for EARLY treatment of Covid infections, but since these inexpensive treatments don’t support the prevailing narrative, and likely dilute Big Pharma political pressure, the political powers that be use them as excuses for imposing additional controls over the economy and our private lives.

    I have personal experience with serious side effects of the Moderna vaccine. My best friend, former Marine sniper, 4 mile a day man in his 50s, was bedridden less than 36 hours after his second Moderna dose and has been since May. Recently, the VA sent tens of vials of blood to various agencies trying to figure out what is wrong with him. Many have had the same experience but the mainstream press and progressive political powers suppress such information and turn a blind eye to it. My friend however is not “misinformation” – he is reality – a small but significant subset of citizens will have serious reactions to these vaccines and education and caution should be exercised until we know with certainty the whys, wherefores, and whos of these serious reactions. Instead we are told to blindly follow the orders of our political leaders whose penchant for one size fits all solutions is both pervasive and in some cases omnipotent.

    Science is almost never settled, humans are complex and varied physiological systems which react differently to the same interventions, and there is a reason why the FDA takes so long to approve new vaccines. But most importantly, our public and university education systems have abysmally failed in empowering our citizens to think on their own and think critically.

    1. “science is never truly settled except for perhaps certain laws of physics”

      That’s not true.

      Some science isn’t settled, but a lot of science *is* settled, including some science that’s distinct from laws of physics.

      Here are some examples of settled science that aren’t laws of physics:
      * chemical elements exist
      * chemical elements have different atomic structures and properties
      * some properties may vary with temperature
      * chemical elements can be combined into compounds
      * mammals are a proper subset of animals
      * a proper subset of living organisms reproduce asexually

      “My best friend, former Marine sniper, 4 mile a day man in his 50s, was bedridden less than 36 hours after his second Moderna dose and has been since May. … My friend however is not “misinformation” – he is reality – a small but significant subset of citizens will have serious reactions to these vaccines …”

      You seem convinced that his illness is a reaction to the vaccine. It’s also possible that the timing is a coincidence. Do you consider your belief to be part of “settled” science?

      “our public and university education systems have abysmally failed in empowering our citizens to think on their own and think critically.”

      Glad to agree. Perhaps the educational systems would do better if we invested as much in educational research as we do in medical research, if teacher preparation were as extensive as medical preparation, if we didn’t discourage our “best and brightest” from becoming teachers, …

  13. The government (especially Fauci) is by far and away the largest provider of misinformation on this or any topic. If you don’t understand this you are the problem. By the way five Nobel Prize winner will have to be locked up based on this. The dead one who invented PCR test and said it is useless for testing for COVID – 19 (as did Fauci) you don’t have to worry about.

    1. “The dead one who invented PCR test and said it is useless for testing for COVID . . .”

      That would be a neat trick, since Kary Mullis (the inventor of PCR) died in August *2019*.

      Incidentally, while it is called the “PCR test,” that is misleading. PCR does not *test* for anything. It’s a genetic replication technique, much like a copy machine. The actual test part involves chemical tagging, which has been used for decades.

  14. The Lefties truly are idiots.

    They never consider that the protocols that they put in place today could be used against them tomorrow.

    Shows both the short sighted thinking of the Left, and their lack of commitment to the Constitution.

    The Lefties are hurting the country.

  15. The city where you can shit in the street is worried about covid protocol…. that’s so nasty pelosi.

  16. Sprec frei or forever hold your piece. And if the complain about you holding your piece then tell em it’s a gun not an organ. Tell you don’t play the organ or the piano.

Leave a Reply