Biden administration unveils ‘Disinformation Governance Board’

When Obama did some shady **** with Republican 501(c)3 pacs, did you approve? You seem to be approving ofDeSantis’ revenge.

 

I thought you were going to supply the evidence for me? Although I'm not sure how that's an example. 501(c)3's are "corporations" but they're non profit ones. They were not attacked for what they were saying since they never got a chance to say anything. So where is your evidence?

 

An opinion piece isn't "evidence." Flagging posts is something that you and I can do as well. Talking to a company and flagging posts (something available to the general public) isn't, in any way, a violation of the 1st Amendment. And, yeah, go back to your "Are we the baddies" post if you've already forgotten.

 

Evidence? I'll take you at your word that you approved of what Obama did. I did not.

 

SPOILER: THEY WILL. Relax: Mayorkas Says His New Thought Police Won’t Monitor U.S. Citizens.

​

Sure. FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants were not supposed to be used as a political weapon, yet, in the service of the political goals of Democrats, they were used against a political campaign, presidential transition team and a Presidential Administration.

We don't believe them because they cannot be trusted.

They are already lying about it.

He's not being specific because the specifics are illegitimate.

They don't have their lies coordinated, yet.

They are all liars.

 

Well, this had me concerned, but since they promised....

/Sarcasm

 

I got the reply that I expected, but not the reply I deserved. That "opinion piece" quoted Psaki, they didn't make up what she was saying. But it's just an excuse for you to ignore the evidence or...justify it (which is much worse).

And yes, although you are one of "the baddies" I didn't call you a Nazi. You are on the wrong side of civil rights, liberty and democracy. That probably means little to you however.

This is my favorite though, "Talking to a company and flagging posts (something available to the general public) isn't, in any way, a violation of the 1st Amendment." The government shouldn't be "flagging problematic posts for Facebook. " Of course I would expect that we would have differing views of the government. My view is that they absolutely shouldn't be doing that.

 

ROFL YOU injected it not me so now that you were only left with hyperbole you want to get back on topic. Fine with me try to stay on it.

 

They said the name of their organizations which the IRS flagged for additional scrutiny, which brought the wrath of the IRS down upon them.

 

And Biden does today? What's your point, you saying Trump should have created a Trump Czar in law enforcement like Biden?

 

Yeah but it has nothing to do with governments attacking corporations.

 

The left wants evidence lol. You've literally got people that still f'ing believe trump was in bed with Putin. It's laughable that the party that has kept this country in this rabbit hole for 5 years based on NO EVIDENCE because there never was any REAL evidence. All made up media and lefty innuendo and yes you're included. You've been going on and on for 26 pages. The bottom line is the government does not need to be the author of truth because it lies over and over again. We can say it's about foreign governments but just like every government watch dog, it's bleed into spying on Americans! We've seen over and over again since 9/11, so please don't act dumb that this opens a serious problematic door for the free in this country. No the new program hasn't done anything yet but you're opening a door that has been opened in Nazi Germany, Russia, NK, China and others and our leader wants that for America. This is f'ing America and hopefully you'll be able to project some potential problems with a government law enforcement agency assigned the task of our Government's truth.

 

Obama used the power of his office to go after his political enemies.

 

That's a much broader topic than what I thought you were talking about, which was government using it's power to attack corporations that they don't like.

 

I was disputing your assertion that "They were not attacked for what they were saying". Whether or not they are "corporations" seems irrelevant to the topic.

 

OK I don't think you know what we were talking about then because the fact that they were corporations was exactly what we were talking about,

 

Is it okay for government to go after its domestic political enemies or not? This is easy stuff.

 

Not only is that easy, that is actually on topic, and the answer is no. However since it's been happening since the founding of the Republic, it's neither illegal or constitutional.. You may argue, "there oughta be a law" but there isn't one.

 

Disinformation can be measured.
Recognizing and fighting it verbally doesn't conflict with the right to free speech.

 

Recognizing and fighting it verbally is the role of the free press and the public square not White House officials.

 

Does such a strict division of roles exist? I don't think so.

 

Historical yes I think so, what do you like this in particular?

"The sheer absurdity and spectacle, however, shouldn’t distract from the seriousness of what the Biden administration is attempting to undertake. The formation of a disinformation board within the Department of Homeland Security is a specific choice: to place government speech regulations within the context of law enforcement. The “speech police” is now less metaphorical phrasing than actual reality.

Jankowicz appears to support contextualizing speech into a law enforcement frame. In April, she told National Public Radio that “law enforcement” needs to do more about “free speech absolutism” on social media before speaking approvingly about a bill in the United Kingdom that would empower law enforcement to enforce speech codes."
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/0...-defund-bidens-dystopic-disinformation-board/

Why would you support law enforcement engaging in the governance of our free speech? I see 1st Amendment problems.

 

It’s not unconstitutional for the government to punish those who say things the government doesn’t like? Hmm.

 

It's not unconstitutional for a state government to eliminate a subordinate unit of it's own government that it established, which is what's happening in Florida.

Just like it wasn't unconstitutional for the San Antonio city council to ban Chik-fil-a because they had contributed to christian family causes. However if you think it's unconstitutional I'm anxious to read your legal brief.

 

Obvious political punishment is obvious. Disney is Florida’s number one cash cow. Why didn’t he tackle this grave issue three years ago?