At some point it health and safety can become a question of utility. How many people will be harmed vs how many will be saved. If the side effects of the vaccine kill 100 but save 250 million was it worth it?
Speaking out against his Jewish policy did not pose any significant tangible threat to physical safety. Jews weren’t threatening anyone’s life. He might argue that they were for his own selfish purposes, but that’s a high bar to cross.
Hitler’s and his minions were claiming the Jews were murderous treacherous thugs responsible for all that is bad in Germany. Reasons which certainly go the the citizens physical safety. He prohibited speech which was critical of this policy. Hitler determined what was fact and what was misinformation. A fact pattern we have seen over and over again from those in power who seek to silence opposition. The truth rarely matters as the banning of speech is meant to silence the same. To be fair, the truth is often what the people in power say it is. Which is why the silencing of those who dare criticize governments is so damn dangerous.
He could not prove his assertions though. That’s the exact point. He was lying.
He is telling all social media sites (the way news is spread in 2021) to eliminate people’s ability to criticize their policies based on some subjective “misinformation” standard. Never would I have dreamed we would have posters defending such actions. When the government flags posts for a private media site to remove and then ban the users it becomes a first amendment issue and one of government tyranny.
Right. But he is the one making the policy, spreading the policy and determining if the policy is true . Truth is what he says it is. Sound familiar
.
Truth is what he says it is, only after he’s risen to power through lies and deceit. If he isn’t allowed to come to power due to his lies, then it doesn’t happen. Now someone else probably would have who didn’t blame everything on the Jews (thereby threatening public safety)… but that’s a different problem.Right. But he is the one making the policy, spreading the policy and determining if the policy is true . Truth is what he says it is. Sound familiar
Oh…history is replete with tyrants who came to power as “heroes” of the people. Now how many of those were simply lying to obtain power or became tyrannical once power was obtained is up for debate. The ability to silence ones opposition almost always lies with those who have already achieved power. Now if the media and websites gets into the act you suddenly have private or semi private individuals with censorship power. I’m always most fearful of the guys in the tanks though.
Wait, Trump killed 600,000+ people with his actions according to you. Now you say people who don't get vaccinated killed 600,000+ people. Are you saying the 1,200,000 million have died of Covid? You won't even hear of China, where it all started being to blame. Russia is bad we all agree on that, but some people refuse to criticise China. You bend facts which like a gas expands to fit the container. Would you mind saying anything about China?
I don't think WATU ever argued that Trump killed 600K people. I did the math on the fraction of excess deaths we had over apples to apples western societies like France & Germany based on per capita numbers. I think I came up with the US having somewhere between 30-50K excess deaths. How many of those Trump might be at least partially responsible for is debatable.
The key is not giving the president or any single party or partisan individual the power to do that. Much like the judiciary, any body examining speech needs to be as independent as possible and they need to have some expectation of objectivity. We have defamation laws where individuals, with a hefty burden of proof, can argue that speech was harmful to their livelihood. The same should be available to groups who are suffering physical danger because of certain types of speech. In fact, speech promoting physical danger to a person or party should probably be the more serious version of prohibited speech.
Agreed. Trump kill not kill 600K people, but there's a solid argument for 300K deaths. Cananda, Australia, and New Zealand had among or the very lowest death rates in the world, and they are western democracies with people who look pretty much like us. They knew they would have to wait for vaccines longer, so they strongly and consistently implemented basic public health procedures. So did Korea, Taiwan, and Japan which had much lower death rates. Asian? Yes, but also liberal democracies and US allies.
Yes. However, when the government starts flagging speech and instructing the media site not only to censor said speech but then ask all media sites to ban the poster then those businesses are merely acting as an agent for the government. Especially when the speech being silenced is critical of the government and people being banned across all platforms are those who dare speak out against government policies. You have a first amendment problem and a potential dangerous situation.
He has in the recent past. Now he is backing down to a milder 300k and, of course, not any mention of Wuhan Lab. 300,000. If we support vaccination, as I certainly do, then prompt arrival of new vaccines (actually even new kinds of vaccines) saved lives.
I find it hilarious that a lib wants to talk about fallacy...
If Woodrow Wilson minds his own business and stays out of Europe, we never have to worry about any of this discussion. Adolph just becomes another failed artist on the public dole.
The bakery deal was wrong , business should have the right to serve anyone they want and refuse service to anyone , just as a website should have the right as well
I do agree that everyone has the right to an opinion , I do believe for the most part you and I are relatively in the middle on things , and agree on a lot of stuff, and I do believe we need to be watching our government very closely because I do believe it is corrupt. On something like Facebook though, I believe that they have the right to censor what they want to censor . Does not mean you and me have to support it though . I have been done with social media and the news for awhile tbh though
One thing is for sure , we have a lot of crooked politicians in Washington
time to learn to speak Russian. the libs are doing a good job of appeasing the communist.
Agreed. Do you think vaccinating people to stop a deadly pandemic is one of those ‘horrible’ things?Committee of Public Safety - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Just a friendly historical reminder that “Public Safety” can be (and has been) used to justify all sorts of horrible things…
I think it’s more dangerous for the government to NOT have to take full responsibility for removing the speech and being able to use these social media companies as shields to subvert the 1st amendment. As I’ve said, I believe a case can be made for certain extraordinary exceptions to the 1st amendment for physical public safety; however, I think there has to be some accountability with whatever agency is pursuing these removals. They each need to be documented and the person making the speech needs to be able to appeal against the request.
Why can't sites just ignore the request? It is an open request that we all know about. What secrecy or coercion is involved? Actually it has made Biden's actions open for public debate. The request is also based on genuine science with an established public benefit during a public health crisis.