NY bill requires people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements

(Mods, I tweaked the title a little so it would fit and make sense)

From the valiant liberal protectors of free speech, (more accurately, their free speech) comes a proposed law forbidding it. Under this law, this board would be subjected to a fine for merely linking to a story deemed to be ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive.’ How's that for free speech which is supposed to remain unfettered by our government?

But wait, there's more. Apparently, these folks didn't think this all the way through because it would require the NY Times to remove 'inaccurate' stories which would probably cause them to dump half of their content. Fake news will instantly die.

So libs, how about it, are you on board with this proposed form of government controlled free speech? Any guesses on how the Times and ACLU feel about this?

 

I can see it being abused.

 

That is the intent of the bill. On this very forum, I predicted this would happen years ago, and people called me crazy. Hell, it's been happening already by more covert methods thanks to Facebook, Twitter and Google. The elites find it easier to control you when you can't freely communicate with each other.

 

Anybody interested in the Zionist connections behind this attempt to rob you of free speech ?

I'm going to tell you anyway.

The bill is introduced by Weprin- an orthodox Jew - and the senate bill by Tony Avella- backed to the hilt by that most disgusting of Israel Firsters- Steve Israel.

It's designed to block criticism of the pariah state of Israel and its atrocities. If it can shut you up on less important matters then that's a bonus.

 

moon, when will you and me discuss the terrible fate of Palestinians at the hands of their Arab brethren? I know, you want to.

 

I wonder who will be the person/organization that gets to decide if there is an abuse or not?

 

PF about to be banned in New York?

 

Sounds

You just linked to a liberal paper criticizing it. The Times and ACLU will likely voice the same concerns. Trump, meanwhile, proposed similar free speech restrictions on the campaign trail. And he's sued people for free speech in the past under logic similar to what is found here.

 

It is absolutely in keeping for Nannys to want to Nanny. This is also called self-perpetuation. Or the eternal job. Fueled with a little, "I know better than you do". I can just see all the left-wing self-appointed protectors of the truth, applauding the likes of Rachel Madcow, CNN and MSNBC and coming down all over Breitbart and Fox. Who doesn't see that as the intent?

 

I don't think it will survive scrutiny. If something is defamatory, there is already a remedy.

 

Yes- your character is assassinated by the Anti Defamation League.

No such animal ? Check out its ' Hate symbol database '. I kid you not.

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols

This repression of free speech is out of hand- and we'd better DO something about it because TALK is under threat.

 

Inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate or excessive to whom? Libs want us to live in Nazi Germany where opinions and free speech are censured if THEY don't agree with it.They already have their corps( not corpse) of Brown Shirts. It is getting scary, and they are as unhinged as Hitler...

 

The ADL database does nothing to limit your free speech or anyone else's. Criticism is not a violation of free speech. It is free speech.

 

Meanwhile Trump wants to do the same thing and nothing but crickets from the right. Neither will ultimately be successful, thankfully.

 

There are some good aspects to the bill, especially in this day and age when so many young people are being caught smoking pot, or having alcohol in their blood when driving. These things shouldn't be on public record for years on end and affect them throughout their lives.

I'm glad that an Orthodox Jew is involved, since they do have strict moral boundaries, but you are right, it will be abused unless everything can be narrowly defined in the bill so that it doesn't infringe on people's rights. I can see though certain parts ending up at the Supreme Court later on. It's bound to be challenged by those who have reasons to do so.

 

I'm trying to find some reports of Anti Defamation League action against the defamation of Palestinians.

 

Every spurious group requires a frontman.

Would you care to comment on the moral boundaries of Steve Israel ?

 

What if the so called free speech infringes on people's rights? For instance if a mother doesn't want her children to be subject to certain derogatory terms which she feels will affect their character development and outlook on life? Another example would be the psychologial affect that a handicapped person would have if they're taunted and insulted because of it?

It's unfortunate that we now live in world where the worse and most degenerative can use the guise of free speech to abuse, slander and offend others.

 

It's not abuse since the 'national/political' aspect of Islam is a priority. Any land that Muslims lived on must remain under Islamic rule or be restored to Islam. That the Palestinians found themselves in a situation where they have to suffer in order to retake the land, is considered their 'fate' in life.

 

What does that have to do with free speech?

 

There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. People are, on the other hand, free to ignore what might offend them.

 

Yes, but I was referring to something else. If you recall, at the beginning of Gulf war, Arafat have bet on the wrong horse, which costed hundreds of thousands of Kuwaiti Palestinians their homes, land, property, residency, everything. They were ethnic cleansed by fella Arabs. And just now, almost thirty years later, Kuwaitis are beginning to worm up to Palestinians again.

Poor Palestinians, suffering tremendously at the hands of their brethren...

 

Would you care to comment on the Palestinian suffering at the hands of Kuwaitis and other Arabs?

 

Trump is probably already celebrating. There's nothing he'd like better than to kill our free press and, especially, to silence any and all criticism of him and the rich parasites he has surrounded himself with.

 

The MSM throughout the world are owned by six corporations and they all follow the same line... and that includes the BBC. The only independent news sources that will actually report all the news rather than what they feel is more expedient to their editors, are some internet sites and some foreign ones such as RT and Sputnik.