Quote:
Originally Posted by OneHungLo
The problem is, who decides what's misinformation? I can site both sides claiming misinformation when it wasn't. Wouldn't it be ideal and in the spirit of 1A to let all speech (speech that is protected under 1A) be present and let the truth counter misinformation?
|
I know. That's the conundrum. It's also pretty evident that one side does it far more often (in recent years anyway) than the other, and they're the ones most butthurt because their talking points don't align with reality in a lot of ways.
The truth does in a lot of ways - that's why a lot of these organizations have settled multiple defamation suits (like Project Veritas), or declared bankruptcy (Alex Jones / InfoWars) to avoid losing a massive defamation lawsuit. The far-right then whines that the courts are "liberal socialist evil commies" or whatever the fuck dumb shit they say. So, I mean, circular logic or something, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdbucks
Well, that's where the left's circular logic comes into play. Under their ideology, any speech that goes against what they think and/or believe is "misinformation" and should be silenced. That's the game they like to play when justifying censorship.
|
Yet Texas and other GOP led states are literally banning books.
