D Kerry"1rst Amendment stands in way of Climate agenda&need Harris to win to implement change to it"
Kerry goes on to say that with regard to dissenting free speech about Climate Change (and other Dem held agendas) that he hopes to "hammer it out of existence" which he says they can do if they get enough votes in the election.
He's is stating honestly what Biden/HarrisHandlers truly plan to do with their power....nullify the constitution and implement their own control.
As MAS has said many times, "They (Democrats) do not believe in free speech".
Link: https://www.foxnews.com/media/john-kerry-first-amendment-major-block-stopping-disinformation
Replies to: D Kerry"1rst Amendment stands in way of Climate agenda&need Harris to win to implement change to it"
Those pesky inalienable rights. Always a foil to the totalitarian Democrats.
(no message)
Says the guy whose intent is to vote for a candidate who has said, he will be a dictator
and will use the DOJ department (he bad mouths daily) to jail all of his adversaries - the Clinton’s the Obama’s, the Biden’s, the Cheney’s, John Bolton, Chris Christie and the list goes on.
But yeah, the D’s are the authoritarians.
The left is telling us they want to limit the Bill of Rights.
We should take them at their word. Pay Attention!
Link: https://x.com/pmarca/status/1840656582717366744?t=_Wm6dmJEKBq9kd4nUo5QkA&s=19
They want to be able to lie with impunity, this is a real threat to democracy.
(no message)
When FOX, with a market cap north of $18B can choose to shell out $787M for knowingly lying to its
subscribers, and not have to apologize, much less change its behavior, this country has a serious problem with 'Misinformation'...what really makes it so bad is the willing acceptance by those subscribers to the knowledge that they've been massively lied to over an issue that involves trust in our nation's democratic process...they are the reason this problem exists...if they were demanding of ethics and refused to accept such outright falsehoods, misinformation outlets would not survive.
Misinformation is a toxin we have to face...to do nothing is unacceptable. Hopefully, in a Harris administration, which has demonstrated a desire for bipartisan legislation, we'll see real progress confronting it.
Are you suggesting the 1st Amendment should be "reimagined"?
(no message)
Not "Re-Imagined"...just better understood and applied...
...from the attached paper...
-----------------
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
----------------
IMO government...through legislation...must act when there is the potential for serious harm to citizens...and restrict or penalize those who engage in such speech. Such decisions have been reached before...we can certainly apply lawful processes to deal with "Misinformation" as well.
Link: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does#:~:text=Freedom%20of%20speech%20does%20not,354%20U.S.%20476%20(1957).
Hard pass. You won't be getting legislation that allows you people to determine "misinformation."
(no message)
I just gave you a link with cases that thwarted different versions of "speech"...we can...and will..
do this, especially with the advent of malicious AI becoming prevalent.
Libel Laws have been on the books for a long time. Get with it.
(no message)
I completely agree and support them as such.
Those laws, and similar, absolutely should be on the books.
I don't believe that we can view the statements and sentiment by Kerry through that same lens, though.
Though I completely disagree with anyone who says the 1st amendment needs to go, I will
point out, Kerry has a valid point. The 1st amendment gets in the way of stopping social and news media outlets from authoring and authorizing falsehoods misinformation and misleading content to the public it serves. This to either damage others or use as propaganda.
This is where responsibility is most important. It’s possible Libel Laws need to be enhanced.
What Kerry said isn’t wrong. If his intention was to say the 1st amendment needs to go, then he’s completely off base.
What a piece of shit.
That pesky democracy and the "issues" it brings. We really need his suggested "arbiter of truth" to limit the information people have access to.
She doesn't really believe in free speech.
(no message)