*Biden Will Now Listen In On Your Text Messages And Correct “Fake News” In Them…
- Thread starter SyLent
- Start date
here you go NIGGER
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278
now tell me this isnt Russia N Korea Cuba etc etc
tell me even a known NIGGER like you are OK with this
oh I know
this isnt what it seems to be......yeah BS
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278
now tell me this isnt Russia N Korea Cuba etc etc
tell me even a known NIGGER like you are OK with this
oh I know
this isnt what it seems to be......yeah BS
Biggs_Darklighter
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Posts
- 5,159
There are ways around this shit.
Never trust the government and assume someone is always listening.
It sounds paranoid but its common sense.
People will say they got nothimg to hide.
I say thats not the point.
Never trust the government and assume someone is always listening.
It sounds paranoid but its common sense.
People will say they got nothimg to hide.
I say thats not the point.
CornusKousa
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2020
- Posts
- 14,822
Got a non-believing deplorable Trumpster here!!
You'll need to be re-educated until you accept the federal government as your lord and savior, but only when (D)'s are in office.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Straight from the comedian Tucker Carlson.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-private-conversations-dnc.amp
NorthernVAM
Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Posts
- 221
Individual Free Speech vs. Government Responsibility
What is somewhat sad about this thread is that there is a very fundamental "core" issue with regard to a government's responsibility to institute public policies that protect the citizens from something like a "plague" vs. the individual "right" someone has to express their opinion in a public forum. In a way, this thread is an example of the inability to have a civil discourse about the role of the government and whether or not the government should censor individuals who may threaten the society at large. I would say that by focusing on Trump, Biden, or Fauci -- everyone is missing the real issue. The issue isn't the individual leadership and whether you believe they are idiots or not -- the issue is, how and when does a society determine that the rights of an individual need to be suspended because the larger society faces a serious threat to its citizens?
If you go back to the Civil War, on April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus between Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia to give military authorities the necessary power to silence dissenters and rebels. Basically, throwing people in jail without just cause and due process is clearly unconstitutional, and yet he got away with it without being impeached.
So, there is a precedent for suspending individual rights in a time of national crisis. During the first Adams administration there was the Alien and Sedition acts, which basically allowed the government to throw people in jail if they disagreed with the administration's foreign policy with respect to the US relationships with Great Britain and France.
Similarly, during World War I, the government created a propaganda machine called the Committee on Public Information (1917–1919). It was was an independent agency of the government of the United States created to influence public opinion to support the US in World War I, in particular, the US home front. What role, if any, should the government have in manipulating citizen's opinions with public tax dollars. In that case, Eugene Debbs, who was a socialist was convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918 for speaking out against getting involved in World War I.
While in theory, we citizens of the USA say we believe in an inalienable right free speech, but in practice you have a little asterisk on that -- which basically says -- until we (the government of the people, for the people, and by the people), you don't.
So -- given our history what do we do?
What is somewhat sad about this thread is that there is a very fundamental "core" issue with regard to a government's responsibility to institute public policies that protect the citizens from something like a "plague" vs. the individual "right" someone has to express their opinion in a public forum. In a way, this thread is an example of the inability to have a civil discourse about the role of the government and whether or not the government should censor individuals who may threaten the society at large. I would say that by focusing on Trump, Biden, or Fauci -- everyone is missing the real issue. The issue isn't the individual leadership and whether you believe they are idiots or not -- the issue is, how and when does a society determine that the rights of an individual need to be suspended because the larger society faces a serious threat to its citizens?
If you go back to the Civil War, on April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus between Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia to give military authorities the necessary power to silence dissenters and rebels. Basically, throwing people in jail without just cause and due process is clearly unconstitutional, and yet he got away with it without being impeached.
So, there is a precedent for suspending individual rights in a time of national crisis. During the first Adams administration there was the Alien and Sedition acts, which basically allowed the government to throw people in jail if they disagreed with the administration's foreign policy with respect to the US relationships with Great Britain and France.
Similarly, during World War I, the government created a propaganda machine called the Committee on Public Information (1917–1919). It was was an independent agency of the government of the United States created to influence public opinion to support the US in World War I, in particular, the US home front. What role, if any, should the government have in manipulating citizen's opinions with public tax dollars. In that case, Eugene Debbs, who was a socialist was convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918 for speaking out against getting involved in World War I.
While in theory, we citizens of the USA say we believe in an inalienable right free speech, but in practice you have a little asterisk on that -- which basically says -- until we (the government of the people, for the people, and by the people), you don't.
So -- given our history what do we do?
That isn't censorship. It is adding government messaging to supplement whatever people are telling each other, and American government has always done that, it's in the nature of a public service announcement.
Similar threads
