Congress taking on 1st Am by proxy

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Nonsense. Your claim that legally being prevented from telling lies means that one then can't tell the truth is disproved by laws against lying.

You need to read what I wrote more carefully, because you clearly don't understand it. Go on, quote exactly what I said.

[Emily's Cat]

I'm actually a bit frightened by the illiberal, repressive, and downright authoritarian views being expressed here.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Is it?

As I already mentioned, the most direct causal connection we have to specific actions and specific deaths from Covid is probably the nursing home orders. But that seems to get a pass for some reason. Which is why I think this is all a pretense.

Yes, it is. Then again, the fact that you don't care or even seem to realize that more people died than just those in nursing homes shows where the pretense lies. Countries that did not have those from your tribe telling them that masks not only aren't helpful but will actually cause harm have far fewer deaths. Countries that didn't have those from your tribe telling them that Covid was all a hoax, or no worse than the common cold have far fewer deaths. 2 weeks after my uncle sent me a mocking message about how the Democrats couldn't keep up the Covid hoax much longer (ideas he got from the news agencies you, Emily's Cat, and Distracted1 believe should be free from the consequences of telling), he was dead of Covid.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Yes, it is. Then again, the fact that you don't care or even seem to realize that more people died than just those in nursing homes shows where the pretense lies. Countries that did not have those from your tribe telling them that masks not only aren't helpful but will actually cause harm have far fewer deaths. Countries that didn't have those from your tribe telling them that Covid was all a hoax, or no worse than the common cold have far fewer deaths. 2 weeks after my uncle sent me a mocking message about how the Democrats couldn't keep up the Covid hoax much longer (ideas he got from the news agencies you, Emily's Cat, and Distracted1 believe should be free from the consequences of telling), he was dead of Covid.

Try to stretch your memory waaaaaay back to the beginnings of this pandemic, and see if you can't remember who's "tribe" was telling us not to wear masks.

How many deaths are they responsible for?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm actually a bit frightened by the illiberal, repressive, and downright authoritarian views being expressed here.

Authoritarians stormed our Capitol to stop a free and fair election from deciding who is in charge of our government and you're pearl clutching over the idea of examining the incentives that leads media companies to amplify the hatred and lies that supported it.

Your dissatisfaction with the response isn't evidence the response was any of the things you accuse it of being, let alone wrong.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You need to read what I wrote more carefully, because you clearly don't understand it. Go on, quote exactly what I said.

Sure:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

As I explicitly stated and you seem to have ignored, if I cannot ever tell a lie, I cannot tell the truth either.

To be followed by 1 of 2 actions (not that you aren't predictable)
1) crickets, Zig stops posting at all in the thread (benfords law was one such discussion)
2)Zig tries bluster to explain away why he didn't say what he actually said
2)

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Try to stretch your memory waaaaaay back to the beginnings of this pandemic, and see if you can't remember who's "tribe" was telling us not to wear masks.

How many deaths are they responsible for?

Here we have the exact intellectual dishonesty that has been used to cover for political malice for years now.

There is a difference between being wrong, being extremely negligent, and lying for political gain knowing it will harm people.

Which tribe kept telling us to not wear masks even after it became clear that would harm people? These things are not equivalent. Obviously. Blatantly. And if you were incentivized monetarily to amplify such lies that is worth examining. This isn't a close call.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Try to stretch your memory waaaaaay back to the beginnings of this pandemic, and see if you can't remember who's "tribe" was telling us not to wear masks.

How many deaths are they responsible for?

You mean when we didn't have enough masks for doctors and nurses, and the "tribe" of medical experts was telling people not to panic buy them all like they did with toilet paper? Or did your narrative forget that?

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Here we have the exact intellectual dishonesty that has been used to cover for political malice for years now.

There is a difference between being wrong, being extremely negligent, and lying for political gain knowing it will harm people.

Which tribe kept telling us to not wear masks even after it became clear that would harm people? These things are not equivalent. Obviously. Blatantly. And if you were incentivized monetarily to amplify such lies that is worth examining. This isn't a close call.

Of course.
When the side in power does it- it is "just being wrong" (ETA: Although, at least one other poster here seems to think the lie was deliberate.)
When the side being villified does it it is "lying to harm people".

To be decided by the group in power at the time, of course.

Makes one think that there is a pretty good reason for making laws that say the Gov. has to leave those kinds of judgment calls alone. I would even put it in the Constitution.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by wareyin

You mean when we didn't have enough masks for doctors and nurses, and the "tribe" of medical experts was telling people not to panic buy them all like they did with toilet paper? Or did your narrative forget that?

I see.
So, even at the time they knew that wearing masks was effective for reducing spread- yet claimed that it was not in order to fulfill another agenda. Still, they are not responsible for the spread that could have been prevented by more people wearing masks in the first place- who gets to decide that?

Sounds like a free press to me.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Sure:


To be followed by 1 of 2 actions (not that you aren't predictable)
1) crickets, Zig stops posting at all in the thread (benfords law was one such discussion)
2)Zig tries bluster to explain away why he didn't say what he actually said
2)

Do you see that word "ever"?

Do you know what it means?

Do you know why I included it?

Defamation laws don't prevent me from ever telling a lie. They aren't supposed to.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Of course.
When the side in power does it- it is "just being wrong" (ETA: Although, at least one other poster here seems to think the lie was deliberate.)
When the side being villified does it it is "lying to harm people".

To be decided by the group in power at the time, of course.

Makes one think that there is a pretty good reason for making laws that say the Gov. has to leave those kinds of judgment calls alone. I would even put it in the Constitution.

Fully wrong. It wasn't even the group in power at the time who was combating deadly covid information. That they have since gained power should be a clue on that.

The right isn't as clever as you operate on them being. It isn't hard to tell they were lying with extreme callous disregard to if the lies would cause great harm. It helped them politically, so they said it, defended it, and made very silly false equivalences. More than that, they insist everyone pretend it was hard to tell.

Again, this isn't a close call. That deniability isn't plausible.

The real fear is, like all the other issues I listed, reasonable solutions would be found and popular. This would hurt the right who require reality denial to be viable politically right now. Thus the well has to be poisoned. Even looking at the incentives is a violation of the freedom of speech. The real authoritarians aren't the ones trying to illegally and violently overturn elections, but the people who want to tell if companies are incentivized to support lies.

Not at all clever to pretend this is close call.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Here we have the exact intellectual dishonesty that has been used to cover for political malice for years now.

There is a difference between being wrong, being extremely negligent, and lying for political gain knowing it will harm people.

Cuomo was extremely negligent, it got thousands of people directly killed, and then he lied about it for political gain.

Crickets.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

I see.
So, even at the time they knew that wearing masks was effective for reducing spread- yet claimed that it was not in order to fulfill another agenda. Still, they are not responsible for the spread that could have been prevented by more people wearing masks in the first place- who gets to decide that?

Sounds like a free press to me.

That's an interesting, although patently false, spin on what I said and what happened. You have a promising career at one of the news organizations that you don't want to be held accountable for spreading what they knew to be false causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Cuomo was extremely negligent, it got thousands of people directly killed, and then he lied about it for political gain.

Crickets.

It's like you don't even watch 'liberal' news. No, not crickets. He's been dragged and is in fact under investigation by Democrats.

You're not doing so well with that argument.

EDIT: If the right wing were even a fraction as good as Dems at holding their own accountable for such things, we wouldn't even need to be looking into things. But they're intellectually and morally bankrupt, so here we are.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Do you see that word "ever"?

Do you know what it means?

Do you know why I included it?

Defamation laws don't prevent me from ever telling a lie. They aren't supposed to.

Bluster it is! This still undermines your entire stance in this thread, although you clearly aren't capable of seeing that. There is no law or action being presented or asked for which prevents a person from ever telling a lie, and since you now claim that's the crux of your complaint you've kicked your own leg out from under yourself.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm actually a bit frightened by the illiberal, repressive, and downright authoritarian views being expressed here.

What authoritarian views would those be?

To be clear,

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of governments making laws to suppress free speech.

I am perfectly fine with private owners of media outlets exercising their free speech right by choosing not to allow things they disagree with to be published on their platforms.

I am perfectly fine with members of government encouraging and lobbying those private owners of media outlets to exercise their free speech rights.

What surprises me is that an obviousy intelligent and articulate poster such as yourself seems unable to distinguish between these.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

It's like you don't even watch 'liberal' news. No, not crickets. He's been dragged and is in fact under investigation by Democrats.

Crickets here. And the investigation came months after the fact, because nobody wanted to rock the boat before the election. Sure, hold him accountable, but only when it doesn't risk the party.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

What authoritarian views would those be?

To be clear,

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of governments making laws to suppress free speech.

I am perfectly fine with private owners of media outlets exercising their free speech right by choosing not to allow things they disagree with to be published on their platforms.

I am perfectly fine with members of government encouraging and lobbying those private owners of media outlets to exercise their free speech rights.

What surprises me is that an obviousy intelligent and articulate poster such as yourself seems unable to distinguish between these.

Ah. And how about their freedom to choose to allow things that you disagree with?
You seem to have neglected to itemize that one.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Fully wrong. It wasn't even the group in power at the time who was combating deadly covid information. That they have since gained power should be a clue on that.

The right isn't as clever as you operate on them being. It isn't hard to tell they were lying with extreme callous disregard to if the lies would cause great harm. It helped them politically, so they said it, defended it, and made very silly false equivalences. More than that, they insist everyone pretend it was hard to tell.

Again, this isn't a close call. That deniability isn't plausible.

The real fear is, like all the other issues I listed, reasonable solutions would be found and popular. This would hurt the right who require reality denial to be viable politically right now. Thus the well has to be poisoned. Even looking at the incentives is a violation of the freedom of speech. The real authoritarians aren't the ones trying to illegally and violently overturn elections, but the people who want to tell if companies are incentivized to support lies.

Not at all clever to pretend this is close call.

You know what else isn't clever? Assuming that people who disagree with approaches that strongly suggest an infringement on freedom of the press are "the right" so that you can just dismiss them and don't have to actually consider the effects of this move by some congresspeople.

I'm not on the right.

ETA: Your disingenuous reframing of the issue is also interesting to me. They're not looking to see if the carriers were incentivized to amplify the narrative. They're digging into whether the carriers took punitive action against the press, with the fairly clear subtext that carriers *should* take action against the press. At least, they *should* take action against explicitly and specifically right wing press.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

That's an interesting, although patently false, spin on what I said and what happened. You have a promising career at one of the news organizations that you don't want to be held accountable for spreading what they knew to be false causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Well that's just patently false right there.

Yes, hundreds of thousands have died. But you are implying that all of those who died did so explicitly because these specific news companies caused their deaths directly. Which is just not even a little bit true. I know several people who have gotten covid, some of whom have died. They all got it while wearing a mask any way. Most of them are liberals who don't watch those news channels anyway.

It's flat out false and misleading to try to lay all of the deaths from covid at the feet of a few news outlets - especially when it's abundantly clear that your animosity toward those outlets has a hell of a lot more to do with their political slant than anything else.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

What authoritarian views would those be?

To be clear,

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of governments making laws to suppress free speech.

I am perfectly fine with private owners of media outlets exercising their free speech right by choosing not to allow things they disagree with to be published on their platforms.

I am perfectly fine with members of government encouraging and lobbying those private owners of media outlets to exercise their free speech rights.

What surprises me is that an obviousy intelligent and articulate poster such as yourself seems unable to distinguish between these.

I'm not at all okay with members of the government leveraging their role as government in order to put pressure on carriers of news outlets to infringe on freedom of the press on their behalf.

This is NOT a case of all of the carriers of those news outlets spontaneously saying "gee, we should do something about this". This is members of the government acting as government representatives taking action against cable companies and streaming services in order to get those carriers to infringe on a constitutional right to freedom of the press.

This is akin to the government - as the government - pressuring news-stands to not carry The National Enquirer. Or pressuring Barnes & Noble to not sell books with content they dislike. The government is proscribed from taking action against the author of the book or the publishing agency, and the government is proscribed from taking action against The National Enquirer directly.

So instead, they take action against otherwise impartial sales and delivery platforms. This is the government taking the first steps toward revoking freedom of the press, and controlling news via a third party.

This is something that all of us should be speaking out against.

That so many people are willing (and seemingly eager) to whitewash this and make excuses for it is something that I find deeply troubling.

I disliked Trump's incessant blather about "fake news". Many people on ISF cited freedom of the press against Trump's brain-vomit. But at no point did Trump or his administration actually seek to suppress any of those news outlets in any way. The worst he did was to try to get people to not trust what they were being told. Trump and the republicans sure as hell weren't pressuring internet platforms to ban people referencing that fake news, nor were they going after cable and streaming services that carried those channels.

That the same people crying "freedom of press" against Trump's transparent grandstanding of "fake news" are so willing to justify actions that are clearly implying infringement of the press now is truly disturbing.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm not at all okay with members of the government leveraging their role as government in order to put pressure on carriers of news outlets to infringe on freedom of the press on their behalf.

This is NOT a case of all of the carriers of those news outlets spontaneously saying "gee, we should do something about this". This is members of the government acting as government representatives taking action against cable companies and streaming services in order to get those carriers to infringe on a constitutional right to freedom of the press.

This is akin to the government - as the government - pressuring news-stands to not carry The National Enquirer. Or pressuring Barnes & Noble to not sell books with content they dislike. The government is proscribed from taking action against the author of the book or the publishing agency, and the government is proscribed from taking action against The National Enquirer directly.

So instead, they take action against otherwise impartial sales and delivery platforms. This is the government taking the first steps toward revoking freedom of the press, and controlling news via a third party.

This is something that all of us should be speaking out against.

That so many people are willing (and seemingly eager) to whitewash this and make excuses for it is something that I find deeply troubling.

I disliked Trump's incessant blather about "fake news". Many people on ISF cited freedom of the press against Trump's brain-vomit. But at no point did Trump or his administration actually seek to suppress any of those news outlets in any way. The worst he did was to try to get people to not trust what they were being told. Trump and the republicans sure as hell weren't pressuring internet platforms to ban people referencing that fake news, nor were they going after cable and streaming services that carried those channels.

That the same people crying "freedom of press" against Trump's transparent grandstanding of "fake news" are so willing to justify actions that are clearly implying infringement of the press now is truly disturbing.

I'll try asking one more time.
You keep talking about pressure. What is the specific consequence being threatened is these companies don't do what they are being pressured to do?

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

(...) you are implying that all of those who died did so explicitly because these specific news companies caused their deaths directly.

Why the constant conflation of ‘many, many deaths’ with ‘all the deaths?’ Nobody here thinks a more on-point response and more responsible media would have been able to eliminate the pandemic’s impact in the US entirely. A lot of us just think it could have gone a whooole lot better, with significantly fewer deaths and illnesses.

I don’t think ‘hundreds of thousands’ is the wrong ballpark.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm not at all okay with members of the government leveraging their role as government in order to put pressure on carriers of news outlets to infringe on freedom of the press on their behalf.

While I am nervous about letters like the ones you cite in the OP, I do think we need to avoid overstating the problem. Right now, it's just a letter.

There are rumblings about possible other restrictions, and we should look out for those, and I do tend to agree that some of the responses in the thread suggest a willingness to restrict press freedom, it is all just talk at the moment. I think faced with an actual proposal, a lot of people who are voicing approval in general terms would back off when they actually see the proposed restrictions.

And, unfortunately, not all of them would. There are plenty of people on both the left and the right that would gladly slide toward an authoritarian regime without realizing that's what they are doing.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm actually a bit frightened by the illiberal, repressive, and downright authoritarian views being expressed here.

Oh BS. Nothing repressive is happening. This is typical of right wing authoritarian types upset about not everything going their way. Someone is objecting to all our lies.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Why the constant conflation of ‘many, many deaths’ with ‘all the deaths?’ Nobody here thinks a more on-point response and more responsible media would have been able to eliminate the pandemic’s impact in the US entirely. A lot of us just think it could have gone a whooole lot better, with significantly fewer deaths and illnesses.

I don’t think ‘hundreds of thousands’ is the wrong ballpark.

ONE hundred thousand would be 20% of the total deaths in the US. HUNDREDS of thousands implies 40% or more of the deaths in the US could have been avoided by silencing Fox News etc.

Normalized by population, the US is not materially worse than the UK or most of the EU in terms of Deaths.

Total Deaths normalized by Population

[Cavemonster]

Do you guys actually keep forgetting all the things Trump demanded to be cancelled or are you lying?

It really has to be one of the two.

When you say "Oh, I didn't like Trump saying fake news, but that's different than applying pressure..." You either were paying zero attention or you're lying now.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/polit...ngs/index.html

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm actually a bit frightened by the illiberal, repressive, and downright authoritarian views being expressed here.

It's almost like they've forgotten how they had the vapors and needed to be helped to a fainting couch over Trump's assault on the media.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Do you guys actually keep forgetting all the things Trump demanded to be cancelled or are you lying?

It really has to be one of the two.

When you say "Oh, I didn't like Trump saying fake news, but that's different than applying pressure..." You either were paying zero attention or you're lying now.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/polit...ngs/index.html

Nice list of completely okay things Trump said, right.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Nice list of completely okay things Trump said, right.

I'm confused.
Is pressure from government on media to stifle speech ok as you say here?

Or is is a huge problem as you and EC and others say elsewhere in the thread?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Nice list of completely okay things Trump said, right.

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I'm confused.
Is pressure from government on media to stifle speech ok as you say here?

Or is is a huge problem as you and EC and others say elsewhere in the thread?

In one case, we;ve got the president spouting off and saying that somebody or other ought to be fired(which I disagree with, by the way), but never actually taking action as the president to follow through on that... .

In the other case, we've got members of congress acting in their capacity as congresspeople to put pressure on carriers to limit the content provided by news organizations on their platforms.

Yeah, those are totally the same thing.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

If a publication prints something libelous, it is a duty of the Gov to pursue that publication,

Really?

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I'm confused.
Is pressure from government on media to stifle speech ok as you say here?

Or is is a huge problem as you and EC and others say elsewhere in the thread?

Sarcasm.
They are obviously both wrong.

The sarcasm inspired by the offering up of a list of bad actions as a justification for more bad actions.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

In one case, we;ve got the president spouting off and saying that somebody or other ought to be fired(which I disagree with, by the way), but never actually taking action as the president to follow through on that... .

In the other case, we've got members of congress acting in their capacity as congresspeople to put pressure on carriers to limit the content provided by news organizations on their platforms.

Yeah, those are totally the same thing.

He also threatened openly to "look at their licenses" or some-such while he was calling them "enemies of the people".
Wrong, ill-advised, and an attack on the 1st A.

Somehow, it is supposed to justify the current attempt to do something similar.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I fail to see how this is anything but toothless bluster. Congress can't enact any law forcing these companies stop carrying misinformation, no matter how blatant it is. The cable execs may as use these complaints as toilet paper.

My first thought. None of these companies answer to the federal government.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

He also threatened openly to "look at their licenses" or some-such while he was calling them "enemies of the people".
Wrong, ill-advised, and an attack on the 1st A.

Somehow, it is supposed to justify the current attempt to do something similar.

Whataboutism.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Sarcasm.
They are obviously both wrong.

The sarcasm inspired by the offering up of a list of bad actions as a justification for more bad actions.

I was specifically responding to posters here, the OP particularly who drew a distinction between Trump's actions towards the media and these letters and came to the conclusion that Trump's threats did not constitute pressure but these letters do.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

In one case, we;ve got the president spouting off and saying that somebody or other ought to be fired(which I disagree with, by the way), but never actually taking action as the president to follow through on that... .

In the other case, we've got members of congress acting in their capacity as congresspeople to put pressure on carriers to limit the content provided by news organizations on their platforms.

Yeah, those are totally the same thing.

For starters:

Quote:

October 2017: Suggesting he could use the power of the state against media entities he dislikes, Trump muses about challenging the broadcast licenses of NBC and other networks over their news coverage. (He again broached the subject of reviewing NBC's license in September 2018.)

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I was specifically responding to posters here, the OP particularly who drew a distinction between Trump's actions towards the media and these letters and came to the conclusion that Trump's threats did not constitute pressure but these letters do.

A wrong conclusion.
They both constitute pressure.

The difference was one was a "bully pulpit" type of pressure .Real- but different from pressure through official channels- as in the tone of the letter from the Congressmembers.