White House’s Efforts to Combat Misinformation Face Supreme Court Test

Who gets to decide what's misinformation and what's fact?

Thought should be a 9-0 decision against the Executive Branch policing speech, but it isn't and the SC decides in favor of the White House, do you really want Trump to have this authority??

 

Covid is a PERFECT example. No amount of debate will sway those who believe masks are ineffective or those who believe masks are effective. Each group can find "research" online to back up its position, and will argue it's position indefinitely.

People who believe that the swabs in the Covid test kits are being used to implant microchips in your nose will continue to believe it. Same for those who believe that the swabs infect you with morgellons. Same for those who believe Covid is a synthetic virus that the Illuminati are going to use to eliminate all who are vaccinated. I could go on. But it mostly depends on which slickly produced videos they found first in some dank corner of the internet.

 

OK, when mentioning the mask debate, you have explained a situation where there are two sides well entrenched in their opposing beliefs...

-Do you honestly believe the public should not be allowed to hear both sides and draw their own conclusion?

-Do you not personally want to hear both sides of the debate? Do you not personally trust your own judgment to hear all sides and then derive your own conclusion?

-Who do you believe should be allowed to declare one side correct and that the other side needs to be banished from the public discourse? Why do you trust this person or group you have selected?



To me, I find it shocking when you look at the sheer number of people that believe as you do( mostly leftists in my experience). I see that mindset as dangerous for a free society.

 

The funny part is that analogy.

 

That probably played pretty well with the Wicken members of the Democratic party...

 

I don't think that inchoate arguing by individuals on the internet arrives at the truth.

Arriving at the truth requires a group activity using a method that has been agreed upon beforehand.

One example is the scientific method where individuals or teams conduct experiments, make observations, develop hypothesis, and collect evidence. This is then presented to their peers for analysis and criticism, published, commented on, replicated or not, and eventually the knowledgeable scientists in the field arrive at a consensus.

Another example is legal procedure, where cases are presented according to rules of evidence, argued within the bounds of court rules, and then decided following the arguments by a judge or jury.

Another example is voting. A jury is one case of this, but formal or informal votes are often taken when deciding managerial issue in corporations and many other organizations.

IIRC, the Internet Engineering Task Force agrees on standards via "rough consensus and running code". That is, before a standard is completed there must be two consistent implementations produced and tested, and the responsible committee must have argued through the pros and cons until there are no substantial objections.

Now scientific fraud, miscarriages of justice, bad boardroom decisions, and crufty standards do happen. But well documented, rational debate according to established rules by people expert in the subject matter does lead to a better result.

 

-According to the scientific method, there is a differing opinion as to the wisdom in mask usage as evidenced by multiple conflicting "studies" on this issue that you have already cited.
-Using a jury to determine the wisdom in mask usage is fruitless
-Voting? Nope.
-Engineering standards? Nope.




Did you have any methods that would actually address the hypothetical that we were discussing?

Of course you do not because there is not one objective truth that applies to every individual. We are a free society. One person may conclude that they should wear a mask because they are particularly vulnerable or currently sick etc. Another may decide that they are compromised from a pulmonary perspective and wearing a mask would be dangerous to them for a whole host of reasons other than Covid. Other people simply want to express their rights as free citizens to decide what is best for them. There is not a one size fits all answer, and every individual has a right to decide what is their best course of action.

I happen to have worked in medical sales for over two decades now, which is relevant to this discussion only in that I know my way around a medical study very well, and that I have a deep understanding of just how different opinions vary across literally all treatment decisions with different doctors. You would be shocked in the difference of opinion and resulting treatment protocols that exist as a result of these differing opinions amongst physicians. Every patient situation is different. Every doctor is different. The interaction between patients and doctors vary wildly as a result in regards to how each situation is treated. Treatment decisions are ultimately up to the doctor and to a lesser extent to the patient who has first right of refusal.

You have been falsely led to believe that there is one accepted protocol in medicine, and that is the very antithesis of how medicine is practiced in the real world. For example, some legitimate doctors believe that literally everyone should be vaccinated. Some legitimate doctors believe that only those that are immune compromised, overweight, or over a certain age should be vaccinated. This is a decision to be made between the doctor and patient as they weigh their unique risk profile. It is not supposed to be dictated via government edict. Information is key. More information is better than less.

To silence one side of this debate because the executive branch has determined that the opposing viewpoint should be silenced is unconscionable. It is frightening just how easily you and seemingly many other leftists are so easily led down the censorship path. If you have no problem letting the Biden admin dictate what you can and cannot read then you should in turn have no problem with the Trup admin doing the same. Undoubtedly the latter would be untenable to you, so your position is short-sighted to say the very least.

More information is always better than less. The government should never be involved in censoring what the public can discuss and/or read with unless it were child prnogrpahy or something of an obvious illegal nature. Your willingness to suckle on the government censorship teat is disturbing to say the very least. Unfortunately, you are not alone.

I don't know you in the slightest, but in my experience, it seems to be young people who are most anxious to let the government tell them what to think. Are you under 30 by any chance?

 

What's so funny about his analogy?

 

Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s oral arguments over social media censorship

The Supreme Court on Monday appeared deeply skeptical of arguments by two conservative states that the First Amendment bars the government from pressuring social media platforms to remove online misinformation.

In more than 90 minutes of oral arguments that occasionally veered into the justices’ personal frustrations with the press, several conservative justices sided with the liberal wing in appearing to doubt claims by two states that the Biden administration violated the Constitution with the practice.

Louisiana and Missouri accused the Biden administration of a sweeping censorship campaign conducted through emailed and other communications with social media platforms.

In the communications, government officials routinely used expletives and other strong language to flag posts related to Covid-19 and the 2020 election that they believed violated the platforms’ terms, and demanded the posts be removed. In some cases, platforms complied with the takedown requests. Others were ignored.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/18/poli...tes-arguments-in-social-media-case/index.html

So.........not like the Chinese.

 

Yet!

 

KBJ Warns: Free Speech Could Lead to People Speaking Freely

Well, we can't have that.

"This is a very dangerous idea," Jackson said. "Having the right to free speech plainly written into the Constitution could set a frightening precedent that would let people in this country, like say whatever they want. What if someone wants to say a bad thing that I hate? The founders clearly did not anticipate this when they wrote the Bill of Rights."



'Jackson continued to explain her concern as several other justices on the court reportedly proceeded to look at their copies of the U.S. Constitution, then back at Jackson, then back at the Constitution, and back at Jackson.'

It's always tough to read the tea leaves from oral arguments, but a disturbing number of Justices seemed to agree with her.

 

Justice Jackson Says the 'Most Horrible Thing I've Ever Heard' About The 1st Amendment.



'KBJ doubles down: “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”

Others quickly point out:

'That is, quite literally, the entire point of the First Amendment—of the entire Bill of Rights.'

'The whole point of the First Amendment — and of the Constitution — is to “hamstring the government in significant ways.”'

'Listen to Justice Jackson expressing concern that the First Amendment may be used to restrict the government's power. No one with even an elementary understanding of constitutional law principles should say something like this.'

'This is the most horrifying thing I've ever heard from a Supreme Court Justice. Ketanji Brown-Jackson is concerned that the First Amendment is making it harder for the government to censor speech. That's literally the entire point.'

How can someone go through our top schools, earn top honors, holds such an elite position, and be so ignorant about the very subject that she is supposed to be an expert in?

 

Biden's entire Administration is disinformation, misinformation and a hoax. He's only in office because the CIA and FBI lied about Hunter's laptop to rig the election.

Bribed Joe still pushes the disinformation that Trump called Nazi's "Fine folks".

Trump Reveals Plan To Impose 100 Percent Tariffs On Chinese Cars Made In Mexico

"Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now. You think you're going to get that, not hire Americans."

The entire Bloodbath disinformation hoax by the Bribed Joe and the Dems is to avoid discussing Trump's plans to protect the auto industry from Bribed Joe's plans to hand it over to the Chinese Communists that bribed him.

Mexico has already taken a 1/3rd of the US auto business and Bribed Joe wants to give them the rest. That's why they are trying to direct attention away from Trump's 100% tariffs on Chinese Autos, because Bribed Joe, who has taken in $Millions in bribes from the Chinese, has no plans for protective tariffs to protect US Auto Workers like Trump does.

The idea that Bribed Joe is going to run the Ministry of Truth for Social Media is a gas, although I wish the Justices seemed more concerned about Bribed Joe's censorship of Americans. I did not like the way the Court responded to arguments, much at all.

 

It’s been said a million times, the Constitution exists to protect us from the government. Biden’s diversity hires will sink this country.

 

I think we'll survive it.

 

"Speech" is different than a blatant coordinated misinformation campaign.

 

Yes. Bribed Joe's blatant coordinated misinformation campaign on his giveaway of the US Auto Industry to Mexico and China after Trump promised 100% tariffs to protect the US auto industry. Trump exposed Bribed Joe's planned bloodbath of the US Auto Industry by giving it away to Mexico and China.

'Back in September, President Trump warned in a Truth Social post that the Biden administration’s EV program will end up benefiting China and the “Auto Industry in America will cease to exist!”'

You know why Bribed Joe is mounting the coordinated disinformation campaign on the word "bloodbath" rather than embracing the trade issue Trump raises? Because Bribed Joe has no intention of protecting the US Auto Industry for US Auto Workers.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...-100-percent-tariffs-chinese-cars-made-mexico

 

Boring repetition.

 

IOW, you are saying that political campaigns are not "Speech". Right?

 

Now More Than Ever, too much of the Left Is Terrified of Free Speech.

“This all gets back to the Democrats’ disinformation fairy tale.' That some Dems push. 'They would prefer to be able to label any truths that interfere with their false narratives as disinformation and to lean on social media platforms to censor conservatives. Traditional media is already doing their bidding, so they don’t need any help there. Dems are also nervous about not having Twitter/X in their pockets anymore.”

'The dumber their ideas get, the more afraid of contradiction they become. And they’ve gotten pretty damn dumb.'



She's concerned that if Bribed Joe can't ABRIDGE the Free Speech rights of Free Americans, that Free Americans will go around just saying whatever they damn well please!

 

"You "fear" that folks might be exposed to speech you don't like....."

Wrong. That happens every day, 24/7 on Faux. The focus of the Biden admin's efforts comes in trying to persuade social media sites to take down posts spreading disinformation, which is permitted.

 

So in that case, since you are engaging in a blatant coordinated misinformation campaign in your "bloodbath" thread, that means your First Amendment rights are forfeit?

 

Clearly the Founders DID anticipate this when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

They probably anticipated that a totalitarian rights-repressive authoritarian like Ketanji Brown Jackson would wind up on the SCOTUS, too.

 

How Orwellian.

Follow your Fuhrer....

 

We all know lefties want HUGE government. I like that Jackson was straight up with that. Honesty is important.