User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48

Thread: Astonishing California bill would shut down free speech, require fact-checkers

  1. #11
    Original Ranter
    Points: 150,427, Level: 93
    Level completed: 5%, Points required for next Level: 3,623
    Overall activity: 99.4%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    38824
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    36,564
    Points
    150,427
    Level
    93
    Thanks Given
    10,108
    Thanked 7,812x in 6,009 Posts
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Can't we force Californification to opt out of the Country. Lets take away their airports and build a wall around the state.
    Don't only Practice your Art, but force your way into its Secrets, For it and Knowledge can Raise men to the Divine!!!!! Ludwig Van Beethoven ~

  2. #12
    Points: 94,831, Level: 75
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 2,519
    Overall activity: 44.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Crepitus's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    1253367
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    34,850
    Points
    94,831
    Level
    75
    Thanks Given
    15,631
    Thanked 11,592x in 8,430 Posts
    Mentioned
    394 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    It chills free speech. Period.
    That depends on the definition of free speech. Are lies and slander free speech?
    I don't insult, I diagnose.

  3. #13

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 32,076, Level: 43
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 374
    Overall activity: 99.3%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    162281
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    9,448
    Points
    32,076
    Level
    43
    Thanks Given
    3,710
    Thanked 7,543x in 4,405 Posts
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Crepitus View Post
    That depends on the definition of free speech. Are lies and slander free speech?
    Yes. One is free to lie and slander but must face the consequences of same. There are times where a court will issue an injunction if irreparable harm will occur if someone is allowed to say something about someone -- like, for example, if I wanted to call you a "constitutional literalist". You might consider that libelous. You could go to court and argue that me saying that would cause you irreparable harm. This government putting content conditions on speech is very bad. Remember, it is the most offensive of speech that is the most worthy of protection.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Cannons Front (04-16-2018),MMC (04-16-2018)

  5. #14
    Points: 37,604, Level: 47
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 946
    Overall activity: 61.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    35735
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,018
    Points
    37,604
    Level
    47
    Thanks Given
    23,742
    Thanked 6,749x in 4,901 Posts
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the liberals would be screaming bloody murder if this rule was going to be applied to them as well..........
    Everything is on its way to somewhere
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

  6. #15
    Points: 403,646, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 76.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    389522
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    135,331
    Points
    403,646
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    12,756
    Thanked 37,090x in 27,509 Posts
    Mentioned
    1610 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    That's somewhat the difference between a libertarian/conservative definition of liberty and a liberal one. One should be free to speak and face consequences. One should be free to make mistakes, including what others consider lies and fake news. Making mistakes is how we learn to constrain ourselves in self-government. On the liberal view that freedom comes not from the self but is the purview of the government, a centralized few dictating what is true and shutting down what isn't...or what doesn't serve the interests of the elite.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    MMC (04-16-2018)

  8. #16
    Points: 37,604, Level: 47
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 946
    Overall activity: 61.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    35735
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    14,018
    Points
    37,604
    Level
    47
    Thanks Given
    23,742
    Thanked 6,749x in 4,901 Posts
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's like long guns. the liberals state they only want the AR's today. Once they've gotten that, they'll be after pistols. Look to MA where they have officially stolen people's 2nd A Rights to possess any mean looking long guns..they are also after handguns that carry more rounds than a six-shooter. Next it will be six-shooters. then it will be illegal to own any guns.
    The 1st A will be treated the same way.
    Why on earth would anyone surrender their Rights, any of them, to a government that has been known to despise the people they desire to lord over
    Everything is on its way to somewhere
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to stjames1_53 For This Useful Post:

    Grokmaster (04-16-2018)

  10. #17
    Points: 79,802, Level: 68
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 248
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassSocialVeteran
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    280107
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Madison
    Posts
    39,607
    Points
    79,802
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    28,600
    Thanked 11,467x in 8,964 Posts
    Mentioned
    172 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Crepitus View Post
    The way I read it, nobody is saying it can't be said. Just that you can't call it news if it doesn't pass a good faith attempt at fact checking.
    Hmmm. Government approved news. What could possibly go wrong?
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MisterVeritis For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (04-16-2018),Grokmaster (04-16-2018),stjames1_53 (04-16-2018)

  12. #18
    Points: 79,802, Level: 68
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 248
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassSocialVeteran
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    280107
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Madison
    Posts
    39,607
    Points
    79,802
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    28,600
    Thanked 11,467x in 8,964 Posts
    Mentioned
    172 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Crepitus View Post
    That depends on the definition of free speech. Are lies and slander free speech?
    In my opinion, you are making the same argument that our board's geniuses have been making about the Syrian war of choice. Did the President trample on the Constitution? It depends on what the meaning of war is.

    Our geniuses are willing to blur the lines between what is a Constitutional act and what is not because they want to support the President's war-making without the inconvenience of hearing the Peoples' voices.

    In your case, you blur the lines because you want to squash any news the Left does not approve.

    In short, you and the Geniuses are doing the same thing.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MisterVeritis For This Useful Post:

    Grokmaster (04-16-2018),stjames1_53 (04-16-2018)

  14. #19
    Points: 94,831, Level: 75
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 2,519
    Overall activity: 44.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Crepitus's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    1253367
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    34,850
    Points
    94,831
    Level
    75
    Thanks Given
    15,631
    Thanked 11,592x in 8,430 Posts
    Mentioned
    394 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Yes. One is free to lie and slander but must face the consequences of same. There are times where a court will issue an injunction if irreparable harm will occur if someone is allowed to say something about someone -- like, for example, if I wanted to call you a "constitutional literalist". You might consider that libelous. You could go to court and argue that me saying that would cause you irreparable harm. This government putting content conditions on speech is very bad. Remember, it is the most offensive of speech that is the most worthy of protection.
    Some of the junk being passed off as news by people like Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones is the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. That is not protected speech.
    I don't insult, I diagnose.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Crepitus For This Useful Post:

    Grokmaster (04-16-2018)

  16. #20
    Points: 94,831, Level: 75
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 2,519
    Overall activity: 44.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Crepitus's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    1253367
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    34,850
    Points
    94,831
    Level
    75
    Thanks Given
    15,631
    Thanked 11,592x in 8,430 Posts
    Mentioned
    394 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stjames1_53 View Post
    the liberals would be screaming bloody murder if this rule was going to be applied to them as well..........
    Please show me where it said it will only be applied to conservatives.
    I don't insult, I diagnose.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO