Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Hillary Clinton Calls On Congress, Silicon Valley To Address Fake News “Epidemic”
Topic Started: Dec 9 2016, 07:00 AM (2,247 Views)
Alt Right PEPE
Member Avatar

This is why she lost

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBf327osCrU
We Will Gnaw on ANTIFA Skulls
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Dec 10 2016, 04:02 AM
CautionaryTales
Dec 9 2016, 05:17 PM
If the consequence of addressing faked news that the perpetrators of that faked news have issued damage the Constitution as it stands, that's the breaks.
The Constitution is a flexible document and has to adapt to the problems of abuse that have arisen over the years.
The Second Amendment is suffering the consequences of people that have abused the right to bear unlimited arms and there isn't a whole lot of difference between abusers of the First Amendment by people that want to abuse the right of unlimited free speech.
The Constitution has the provision to be amended to correct those problems that were not expected Whalen the Constitution was written. That's why it has the provision to be updated.
Dont be upset with the people that want a civil society. Be upset with the people that want to push beyond the limits the Constitution is capable of setting.

First of all, it's very unlikely that you'll get the support to ratify a constitutional amendment that encroaches on freedom of expression. There are enough citizens and representatives who recognize the danger in empowering the government to control and limit speech. You should be less concerned with limiting the rights of the citizenry and more concerned with limiting the power of the government. Any such law you would propose is ripe for abuse and subject to political bias. It opens the door to allowing the government censorship of critical opinions. Not just the government, but politically motivated entities within the government. How comfortable are you with giving those powers over to a Republican controlled congress? White House? Supreme Court?
The idea that you can legislate a civil society is quite naive and almost as silly as your projecting that I'm upset with people who want a civil society. Most of us want a civil society. What thoughtful, civil people don't want is to further empower the heavy hand of government to judge and determine what speech is permissible and what is not.
Every "right" in the Constitution has a limit.
The question is not whether there are unlimited rights, there are no unlimited rights.The question is at what level the limits are set.
Technology has enabled Rights to be pushed beyond the vision of the founders and the founders knew it would.
They enabled the Constitution to govern our laws based on adjusting our law to account for the changes in the world.
The choice is ours. If we choose to ignore the damages caused by lying in news reporting then we should not have any penalties for lies of any sort.
Edited by CautionaryTales, Dec 11 2016, 07:45 AM.


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
voted4reagan
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Dec 9 2016, 04:15 PM
CautionaryTales
Dec 9 2016, 03:57 PM
ringotuna
Dec 9 2016, 03:52 PM
LOL, CT starts a Hillary thread then calls her old news when he reads something he doesn't like. That's rich.

So, regarding fake news. What do you propose be done?...or do you stop short at 'somebody should do something."
Well, she is old news and happens to be no more than an errand girl for a legitimate issue.
Do you think it is something we should not be concerned about?

I think that laws should be in place that penalize those that share fake news.
I've made my concerns known on this very thread. Pay attention.

So we pass a law, then what? How do we quantify what is and is not fake? Who decides? Particularly these days when accusations are excused as opinion, opinion is confused with news, and News is what the media decides to tell us. You simply cannot segregate the truth from a lie when the truth is simply what we choose to believe. You're treading on very thin first amendment issues here CT. Consequences my friend....consequences.
and will Journalists now have to declare and put forward all their sources for scrutiny?

Yes Ringo.... Hillary is on the edge of a slippery slope indeed.

Trump needs to focus more so on the male vote. He should have nationalized the Boy Scouts when they decided to admit girls.

Harambe4Trump AKA "FASHY"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
voted4reagan
Member Avatar

CautionaryTales
Dec 9 2016, 07:44 PM
Opinionated
Dec 9 2016, 06:37 PM
ringotuna
Dec 9 2016, 04:15 PM
CautionaryTales
Dec 9 2016, 03:57 PM
ringotuna
Dec 9 2016, 03:52 PM
LOL, CT starts a Hillary thread then calls her old news when he reads something he doesn't like. That's rich.

So, regarding fake news. What do you propose be done?...or do you stop short at 'somebody should do something."
Well, she is old news and happens to be no more than an errand girl for a legitimate issue.
Do you think it is something we should not be concerned about?

I think that laws should be in place that penalize those that share fake news.
I've made my concerns known on this very thread. Pay attention.

So we pass a law, then what? How do we quantify what is and is not fake? Who decides? Particularly these days when accusations are excused as opinion, opinion is confused with news, and News is what the media decides to tell us. You simply cannot segregate the truth from a lie when the truth is simply what we choose to believe. You're treading on very thin first amendment issues here CT. Consequences my friend....consequences.
Mr. Ringotuna actually makes a very valid point. It is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to tailor a law in such a way that only those with malicious intent are restricted from passing on fabricated news, without treading over into the territory of censorship and the government deciding what is "true".
Then we will bear the weight of the consequences.

Just as the weight of doing nothing about guns has its consequences
Hillary calls for anything that comes any where close to the First amendment and I can promise you the Democrats will cease to exist as a party. You want to play with the first amendment?

You cant censor the press... Do it and Liberals/Democrats/Progressives will be enshrined in the annals of history as those who tried to overturn the constitutions most precious piece... The beating heart of this nation.

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of the Press

Touch any one of the 3 and you're history... Don't think so?? Try it...

Go ahead....

Trump needs to focus more so on the male vote. He should have nationalized the Boy Scouts when they decided to admit girls.

Harambe4Trump AKA "FASHY"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

My point is that there is a pretty new and real problem that either gets a solution or is incorporated into the way we live in this country.
The limits we set on rights is something we have legally done from the beginning.
Sometimes we ignore the consequences of relaxed limits and the society suffers for it. Think guns.

Technology has pushed the ease of circulation of bogus information to heights unimagined twenty years ago and we have come up with no counterbalance.
Either we choose to rebalance the equation or we suffer the consequences.



Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

The solution is to cause the liars to suffer consequences for the lies.
Maybe it is simply to expose them as liars. Maybe that is all we can do or should and then let the chips fall where they may and we accept the consequences, whatever they are?


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

CautionaryTales
Dec 11 2016, 07:44 AM
ringotuna
Dec 10 2016, 04:02 AM
CautionaryTales
Dec 9 2016, 05:17 PM
If the consequence of addressing faked news that the perpetrators of that faked news have issued damage the Constitution as it stands, that's the breaks.
The Constitution is a flexible document and has to adapt to the problems of abuse that have arisen over the years.
The Second Amendment is suffering the consequences of people that have abused the right to bear unlimited arms and there isn't a whole lot of difference between abusers of the First Amendment by people that want to abuse the right of unlimited free speech.
The Constitution has the provision to be amended to correct those problems that were not expected Whalen the Constitution was written. That's why it has the provision to be updated.
Dont be upset with the people that want a civil society. Be upset with the people that want to push beyond the limits the Constitution is capable of setting.

First of all, it's very unlikely that you'll get the support to ratify a constitutional amendment that encroaches on freedom of expression. There are enough citizens and representatives who recognize the danger in empowering the government to control and limit speech. You should be less concerned with limiting the rights of the citizenry and more concerned with limiting the power of the government. Any such law you would propose is ripe for abuse and subject to political bias. It opens the door to allowing the government censorship of critical opinions. Not just the government, but politically motivated entities within the government. How comfortable are you with giving those powers over to a Republican controlled congress? White House? Supreme Court?
The idea that you can legislate a civil society is quite naive and almost as silly as your projecting that I'm upset with people who want a civil society. Most of us want a civil society. What thoughtful, civil people don't want is to further empower the heavy hand of government to judge and determine what speech is permissible and what is not.
Every "right" in the Constitution has a limit.
The question is not whether there are unlimited rights, there are no unlimited rights.The question is at what level the limits are set.
Technology has enabled Rights to be pushed beyond the vision of the founders and the founders knew it would.
They enabled the Constitution to govern our laws based on adjusting our law to account for the changes in the world.
The choice is ours. If we choose to ignore the damages caused by lying in news reporting then we should not have any penalties for lies of any sort.
So you're formulating your argument on the premise that I'm suggesting "unlimited rights" There's no need for such straw men here CT. And no need to adopt my own argument as your own. My very point is where do you draw the line? The subjectivity of what is real and what is fake today is sadly influenced by our biases.

And no one is saying we should ignore false information in the press, So the basis of your If-Then is flawed as well both in it's premise and it's conclusion.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

CautionaryTales
Dec 11 2016, 08:18 AM
The solution is to cause the liars to suffer consequences for the lies.
Maybe it is simply to expose them as liars. Maybe that is all we can do or should and then let the chips fall where they may and we accept the consequences, whatever they are?
The problem is you wish to push forward with some unspecified "law" and or constitutional amendment, without any concern or consideration of the negative consequences consequences.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
voted4reagan
Member Avatar

CautionaryTales
Dec 11 2016, 08:13 AM
My point is that there is a pretty new and real problem that either gets a solution or is incorporated into the way we live in this country.
The limits we set on rights is something we have legally done from the beginning.
Sometimes we ignore the consequences of relaxed limits and the society suffers for it. Think guns.

Technology has pushed the ease of circulation of bogus information to heights unimagined twenty years ago and we have come up with no counterbalance.
Either we choose to rebalance the equation or we suffer the consequences.

20 years ago it was whatever bogus info that Broadcast Media put forth that we had to figure out.

The Press needs to get out of politics and stop trying to make the news...

Just report it.

Media Bias is real... and this thread proves it... You yourself CT have proven it.

Now to clean out the Hen house...

Trump needs to focus more so on the male vote. He should have nationalized the Boy Scouts when they decided to admit girls.

Harambe4Trump AKA "FASHY"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

voted4reagan
Dec 11 2016, 08:01 AM
ringotuna
Dec 9 2016, 04:15 PM
CautionaryTales
Dec 9 2016, 03:57 PM
ringotuna
Dec 9 2016, 03:52 PM
LOL, CT starts a Hillary thread then calls her old news when he reads something he doesn't like. That's rich.

So, regarding fake news. What do you propose be done?...or do you stop short at 'somebody should do something."
Well, she is old news and happens to be no more than an errand girl for a legitimate issue.
Do you think it is something we should not be concerned about?

I think that laws should be in place that penalize those that share fake news.
I've made my concerns known on this very thread. Pay attention.

So we pass a law, then what? How do we quantify what is and is not fake? Who decides? Particularly these days when accusations are excused as opinion, opinion is confused with news, and News is what the media decides to tell us. You simply cannot segregate the truth from a lie when the truth is simply what we choose to believe. You're treading on very thin first amendment issues here CT. Consequences my friend....consequences.
and will Journalists now have to declare and put forward all their sources for scrutiny?

Yes Ringo.... Hillary is on the edge of a slippery slope indeed.

Indeed, the whole idea is ripe for abuse of censorship. It would be naïve of anyone to think otherwise.
Edited by ringotuna, Dec 11 2016, 08:59 AM.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
voted4reagan
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Dec 11 2016, 08:57 AM
voted4reagan
Dec 11 2016, 08:01 AM
ringotuna
Dec 9 2016, 04:15 PM
CautionaryTales
Dec 9 2016, 03:57 PM
ringotuna
Dec 9 2016, 03:52 PM
LOL, CT starts a Hillary thread then calls her old news when he reads something he doesn't like. That's rich.

So, regarding fake news. What do you propose be done?...or do you stop short at 'somebody should do something."
Well, she is old news and happens to be no more than an errand girl for a legitimate issue.
Do you think it is something we should not be concerned about?

I think that laws should be in place that penalize those that share fake news.
I've made my concerns known on this very thread. Pay attention.

So we pass a law, then what? How do we quantify what is and is not fake? Who decides? Particularly these days when accusations are excused as opinion, opinion is confused with news, and News is what the media decides to tell us. You simply cannot segregate the truth from a lie when the truth is simply what we choose to believe. You're treading on very thin first amendment issues here CT. Consequences my friend....consequences.
and will Journalists now have to declare and put forward all their sources for scrutiny?

Yes Ringo.... Hillary is on the edge of a slippery slope indeed.

Indeed, the whole idea is ripe for abuse of censorship. It would be naïve of anyone to think otherwise.
whats funny is the fake indignation from the Clinton Camp...

Hillary has used this tactic relentlessly for years and now that it worked against her she's against it??

"PENALTIES FOR THOSE THAT PROMOTE FAKE NEWS"??

Line up the climate change supporters... we got some killing to do!!!!!

Trump needs to focus more so on the male vote. He should have nationalized the Boy Scouts when they decided to admit girls.

Harambe4Trump AKA "FASHY"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

It is the job of individuals to decide what is fake news and what is not, not the governments.

This would be the nanny state as thought police. No thanks.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
voted4reagan
Member Avatar

wilmywood8455
Dec 11 2016, 09:35 AM
It is the job of individuals to decide what is fake news and what is not, not the governments.

This would be the nanny state as thought police. No thanks.
:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Trump needs to focus more so on the male vote. He should have nationalized the Boy Scouts when they decided to admit girls.

Harambe4Trump AKA "FASHY"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

wilmywood8455
Dec 11 2016, 09:35 AM
It is the job of individuals to decide what is fake news and what is not, not the governments.

This would be the nanny state as thought police. No thanks.
The party that believes in banning classic literature and safe places for non-whites doesn't agree with you. Maybe you heard the democrat party wanted Mika Brizinski, on MSNBC's morning show, fired for perceived pro-Trump comments?

The alt-left firmly believes in government controlled media.
"No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
CautionaryTales
Dec 11 2016, 08:18 AM
The solution is to cause the liars to suffer consequences for the lies.
Maybe it is simply to expose them as liars. Maybe that is all we can do or should and then let the chips fall where they may and we accept the consequences, whatever they are?
Cool....so let's start with Hillary who spent well north of $6 million on paid trolls to spread fake news...

Then we move on to CNN, Carlos Slim's blog the NY Times, MSNBC , the DNC, Vox, Univision the "journolisters" and all the others Hillary colluded with in the spreading of fake news....

We can save Soros for last....

A good place to start on who to purge is here....

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/

Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katoblue
Member Avatar

This True Factual video is actually about Fake News and the Left's Fake News Tactics.. ;) :victory:


Killary, DNC, Obummer's DOJ and FBI all Lied and Spied and Good People Died!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

The left pushing for censorship. Nothing new.
MEEK AND MILD
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katoblue
Member Avatar

Killary, DNC, Obummer's DOJ and FBI all Lied and Spied and Good People Died!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
CautionaryTales
Dec 11 2016, 08:18 AM
The solution is to cause the liars to suffer consequences for the lies.
Maybe it is simply to expose them as liars. Maybe that is all we can do or should and then let the chips fall where they may and we accept the consequences, whatever they are?
Agreed,

Posted Image
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Right-Wing
Member Avatar

Liberals are idiots. Do they really want to pass a law where the government can go after the purveyors of "Fake News" when Republicans control all three branches of the government, the entirety of our Intelligence Apparatus, the DOJ, the IRS and the majority of State Governorships and legislatures? Really...do you want to give us that authority also? If you do, the left in the US will be completely and permanently destroyed...I can guarantee that.
Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. news · Next Topic »
Add Reply