JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on December 13, 2020, 02:23:02 AM
-
The museums latest Youtube video has a woman showing how to make a childs rocket out of a drink bottle.
-
Is the 6th floor museum losing its touch?
Yes. I don’t think this would have happened if Gary Mack was still there.
-
The museums latest Youtube video has a woman showing how to make a childs rocket out of a drink bottle.
The museum is fulfilling its role as an educational asset (as most good museums do). This video is a part of that effort (which I applaud). A little over a year ago, while in Washington DC, we tried to visit the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum (which I had last seen as a child in the sixties). It was pouring down rain (all day long) but there was a line of people trying to get in that extended further than we could see, even after walking the length of that huge building.
I don’t know that this particular video would capture the attention of the average youngster for 30-minutes. But for the ones that are interested in learning about these things, it is quite informative. Telling about the space race and related items. JFK was a proponent of the space race. The Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral Florida is named after him. So this subject is relevant.
I used to be interested in the solid fuel model rockets as a kid. And I built several and launched them. I do remember a smaller version of the baking soda/vinegar rockets being sold as a toy (probably in the late fifties). Airplanes and rockets continue to fascinate me into my late sixties. So poo pooing the video might make you feel superior in some perverted way. But it just might be the beginnings of a lifelong interest for some youngsters....
-
I believe the Museum just mundanely presents the official findings. Not a place to explore the sort of irresponsible ill-formulated conspiracy-think that would pollute young minds forever. In the Midwest and South, they get that at an evangelical church.
-
I believe the Museum just mundanely presents the official findings. Not a place to explore the sort of irresponsible ill-formulated conspiracy-think that would pollute young minds forever. In the Midwest and South, they get that at an evangelical church.
The best I can tell they try to stay neutral and don’t stay strictly on one side or the other.
The only time I visited the museum was brief. Robert Groden was stationed out front of the building looking rather discouraged. But dealing with the folks there via the net and watching quite a few videos and the way they handle questions, etc leads me to believe that they don’t take one side or the other.
-
The best I can tell they try to stay neutral and don’t stay strictly on one side or the other.
The only time I visited the museum was brief. Robert Gordon was stationed out front of the building looking rather discouraged. But dealing with the folks there via the net and watching quite a few videos and the way they handle questions, etc leads me to believe that they don’t take one side or the other.
I would have to agree with Jerry on this one. The museum has to present the evidence not speculation. I am not saying they should say that the Warren Commission is unassailable but they should point out that it took into account a great deal of evidence that has withstood the test of time.
The conclusion that Oswald shot JFK and that he acted alone is evidence based. Conspiracies aren't. The entire record does not contain a scintilla of evidence of a conspiracy. There is abundant evidence that Oswald was involved and no evidence that anyone helped him or plotted with him. While the possibility of a conspiracy cannot be absolutely excluded, the evidence demonstrates that it would be highly unlikely that Oswald would have been selected as the person to carry it out.
What the museum can and should do, however, is recognize that there is some controversy over the Warren Commission conclusions and to show the variety of all the mutually exclusive conspiracy theories that have cropped up over the years. If nothing else, it would make the museum entertaining. What the museum must not do is suggest that these theories have any evidentiary basis - unless they actually present the evidence. I think trying to do that would be a huge waste of museum funds.
-
I would have to agree with Jerry on this one. The museum has to present the evidence not speculation. I am not saying they should say that the Warren Commission is unassailable but they should point out that it took into account a great deal of evidence that has withstood the test of time.
The conclusion that Oswald shot JFK and that he acted alone is evidence based. Conspiracies aren't. The entire record does not contain a scintilla of evidence of a conspiracy. There is abundant evidence that Oswald was involved and no evidence that anyone helped him or plotted with him. While the possibility of a conspiracy cannot be absolutely excluded, the evidence demonstrates that it would be highly unlikely that Oswald would have been selected as the person to carry it out.
What the museum can and should do, however, is recognize that there is some controversy over the Warren Commission conclusions and to show the variety of all the mutually exclusive conspiracy theories that have cropped up over the years. If nothing else, it would make the museum entertaining. What the museum must not do is suggest that these theories have any evidentiary basis - unless they actually present the evidence. I think trying to do that would be a huge waste of museum funds.
Well said. Being neutral (not taking one side or another) lets them do essentially all those things.
-
The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza (from their website):
Mission Statement
The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza chronicles the assassination and legacy of President John F. Kennedy, interprets the Dealey Plaza National Historic Landmark District and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Plaza; and presents contemporary culture within the context of presidential history.
Vision Statement
To be an impartial, multigenerational destination and forum for exploring the memory and effects of the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy, through sharing his legacy and its impact on an ever-changing global society.
-
Why do they need to stay neutral? There is no real debate that Oswald was the assassin. All the evidence points in that direction. A museum presents facts not crazy, baseless theories. Does Ford's Theatre need to remain "neutral" about John Wilkes Booth's involvement in the Lincoln assassination? That is absurd.
-
Why do they need to stay neutral? There is no real debate that Oswald was the assassin. All the evidence points in that direction. A museum presents facts not crazy, baseless theories. Does Ford's Theatre need to remain "neutral" about John Wilkes Booth's involvement in the Lincoln assassination? That is absurd.
If "impartial" means a lack of bias that is not based on evidence, it would be ok. After all judges and juries are supposed to be impartial and they often reach pretty definitive conclusions. However, if by impartial it means that the museum does not take a stand and provide historically accurate information e.g does not provide the evidence that Oswald shot JFK and Officer Tippet and does not mention the lack of evidence that anyone else did, then it is doing an historical disservice.
-
Why do they need to stay neutral? There is no real debate that Oswald was the assassin. All the evidence points in that direction. A museum presents facts not crazy, baseless theories. Does Ford's Theatre need to remain "neutral" about John Wilkes Booth's involvement in the Lincoln assassination? That is absurd.
Why do they need to stay neutral?
Two good (in my opinion) reasons would be:
1. The same reason that celebrities and entertainers (be it athletes, musicians, actors, etc.) should be publicly neutral (especially regarding political items): in order to try not to alienate a large percentage of their fans (customers). The Sixth Floor Museum is a for-profit business. And it makes good business sense to not alienate their potential customers by taking one side or the other. The controversy surrounding the assassination generates a large percentage of the interest that potential visitors to the museum have. So having an ongoing controversy is good for their business. Why would they want to state their opinion? Taking a side, either way, would tend to discourage potential customers (the ones that feel strongly that the opposite side is correct) from wanting to visit the museum.
2. Public opinions change over time. But factual information does not. Presenting the facts impartially is not only ethical, but insures that the museum will stay relevant even if the public opinions change years from now.
-
Unfortunately because of anti-American leftwingers like Oliver Stone (like the leftist Mark Lane earlier who ruined the thinking of thousands of college kids) and his disgraceful movie "JFK" - which was widely praised and shown around the world - many younger Americans believe there was a conspiracy. The movie was shown in history classes in public schools at the time of its release. Maybe it still is. So I think the Museum has to at least indirectly if not directly mention this fact and present - fairly but not uncritically - the major theories, e.g., grassy knoll shooter.
As we know since the assassination more than half - sometimes up to 70% of Americans - believed there was a conspiracy. And many people around the world also believe there was a conspiracy. Earl Warren said that after the release of the WC report that when he went overseas to lecture or give speeches that he often received critical questions about the report. People in Europe, for example, simply didn't believe the lone assassin explanation. Fred Litwin talked about leftwing Canadians using the CBS CBC (the Canadian national TV network) to promote these conspiracy claims.
So, again unfortunately I don't think the Museum can ignore the overall conspiracy view, a view that is probably held by most people and not just Americans. This is not like the Lincoln assassination.
-
If "impartial" means a lack of bias that is not based on evidence, it would be ok. After all judges and juries are supposed to be impartial and they often reach pretty definitive conclusions. However, if by impartial it means that the museum does not take a stand and provide historically accurate information e.g does not provide the evidence that Oswald shot JFK and Officer Tippet and does not mention the lack of evidence that anyone else did, then it is doing an historical disservice.
However, if by impartial it means that the museum does not take a stand and provide historically accurate information e.g does not provide the evidence that Oswald shot JFK and Officer Tippet and does not mention the lack of evidence that anyone else did, then it is doing an historical disservice.
That would not be impartial, period.
-
Unfortunately because of anti-American leftwingers like Oliver Stone (like the leftist Mark Lane earlier who ruined the thinking of thousands of college kids) and his disgraceful movie "JFK" - which was widely praised and shown around the world - many younger Americans believe there was a conspiracy. The movie was shown in history classes in public schools at the time of its release. Maybe it still is. So I think the Museum has to at least indirectly if not directly mention this fact and present - fairly but not uncritically - the major theories, e.g., grassy knoll shooter.
As we know since the assassination more than half - sometimes up to 70% of Americans - believed there was a conspiracy. And many people around the world also believe there was a conspiracy. Earl Warren said that after the release of the WC report that when he went overseas to lecture or give speeches that he often received critical questions about the report. People in Europe, for example, simply didn't believe the lone assassin explanation. Fred Litwin talked about leftwing Canadians using the CBS to promote these conspiracy claims.
So, again unfortunately I don't think the Museum can ignore the overall conspiracy view, a view that is probably held by most people and not just Americans. This is not like the Lincoln assassination.
Exactly.
And don’t forget that the interest in the museum (and visitation numbers) increased dramatically because of the popularity of Stone’s movie. But that doesn’t mean that the museum should endorse the film as being totally factual. Just answer the conspiratorial type of questions that arise impartially and with as much factual information as possible. That is easier said than done, I know. But that is their apparent goal.
-
Exactly.
And don’t forget that the interest in the museum (and visitation numbers) increased dramatically because of the popularity of Stone’s movie. But that doesn’t mean that the museum should endorse the film as being totally factual. Just answer the conspiratorial type of questions that arise impartially and with as much factual information as possible. That is easier said than done, I know. But that is their apparent goal.
Yes, they simply can't ignore this alternative view although I guess we lone assassin believers are the holders of the "alternative" view right? Let's be honest here: we're sadly in the minority. Not only of Americans but probably "world" opinion (however that's measured).
Lots of Americans think Trump stole the election in 2016 with the help of Moscow. And lots think today that Biden stole the election because of voting chicanery by Democrats. Ugh. It's a sad commentary on our times; and a sad commentary about how completely divided we are as a people. But that's another subject for another time.
-
Lots of Americans think Trump stole the election in 2016 with the help of Moscow. And lots think today that Biden stole the election because of voting chicanery by Democrats. Ugh.
How come social media never banned online talk suggesting that Trump stole the 2016 election? Youtube has banned all such talk about Biden stealing this election.
-
Yes, they simply can't ignore this alternative view although I guess we lone assassin believers are the holders of the "alternative" view right? Let's be honest here: we're sadly in the minority. Not only of Americans but probably "world" opinion (however that's measured).
Lots of Americans think Trump stole the election in 2016 with the help of Moscow. And lots think today that Biden stole the election because of voting chicanery by Democrats. Ugh. It's a sad commentary on our times; and a sad commentary about how completely divided we are as a people. But that's another subject for another time.
Yep, definitely the minority.
Initially, there was a lot of opposition (in Dallas) to preserving the TSBD building and creating the Sixth Floor Museum. But It is now one of the main attractions for Dallas. And I am very happy that they created it and preserved Dealey Plaza. Just another example of why the efforts to destroy monuments depicting our major historical events is misguided.
-
How come social media never banned online talk suggesting that Trump stole the 2016 election? Youtube has banned all such talk about Biden stealing this election.
Maybe because Trump "stole" it legally - he got fewer votes and much fewer votes per electoral vote because of the crazy way your U.S. electoral college works. He also "stole" it legally with the assistance of rampant voter suppression by GOP state executives and legislators. But even that was legal because your courts do not recognize universal suffrage as a constitutional right. So there was nothing wrong with his election - just with the system that your country tolerates for some reason. U.S. democracy is not living up to its ideals and Trump took full advantage of it.
Hillary Clinton recognized that she lost the election and she never alleged widespread voter fraud. But she did complain about the 8 hour-long waits to vote that many of her supporters had to endure and the other attempts by some states (e.g. Georgia) to deregister and suppress the vote of blacks and hispanics. The GOP did not even deny that their tactics were to suppress the non-GOP vote. She also complained about the Comey statement about her emails late in the election and Russian interference. When she said that she felt the election was stolen from her that is what she mentioned. She never suggested that the actual votes that were counted were not all the legal votes that were cast by legal Amercan voters.
Trump is the one that was alleging wide-spread voter fraud in 2016 (both before and after the election) and even appointed a commission to look into voter fraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Advisory_Commission_on_Election_Integrity#Disbanding). The commission never made a report, however because Trump disbanded it in 2018. I wonder why.....
-
Yep, definitely the minority.
Initially, there was a lot of opposition (in Dallas) to preserving the TSBD building and creating the Sixth Floor Museum. But It is now one of the main attractions for Dallas. And I am very happy that they created it and preserved Dealey Plaza. Just another example of why the efforts to destroy monuments depicting our major historical events is misguided.
I hope you are not including in those monuments all the "monuments" to Confederate leaders in the Civil War. There were many diabolical historically significant figures - Stalin, Saddam, Pol Pot, Ghadafi, Ceaușescu etc.. That does not mean they deserve monuments.
-
However, if by impartial it means that the museum does not take a stand and provide historically accurate information e.g does not provide the evidence that Oswald shot JFK and Officer Tippet and does not mention the lack of evidence that anyone else did, then it is doing an historical disservice.
That would not be impartial, period.
Ok then, I agree with you. Impartial means the absence of predisposition one way or the other ie. before looking at the evidence. But in looking at the evidence the Museum should not feel the need to present the evidence that Oswald acted alone as being "equal" to alternative conspiracy theories.
I have not been to the Sixth Floor Museum but I hope to eventually. A good test would be to see how the Museum treats Ruby and his killing of Oswald. It can present all of the evidence of what kind of character Ruby was. But if it should fail to present the evidence of what Ruby did on the morning of November 24/63 at the time Oswald was supposed to be transferred, as well as the evidence that shows the impossibility of Ruby knowing in advance that Oswald would be coming out of those doors 2 hours late, then I think it would be failing to act impartially.
-
I hope you are not including in those monuments all the "monuments" to Confederate leaders in the Civil War. There were many diabolical historically significant figures - Stalin, Saddam, Pol Pot, Ghadafi, Ceaușescu etc.. That does not mean they deserve monuments.
The PC mob in Canada are removing statues of Sir John A. Macdonald, the country's founding father. I don't know where it's going to end. Political correctness is a major reason why almost half of Americans voted for Trump.
-
I hope you are not including in those monuments all the "monuments" to Confederate leaders in the Civil War. There were many diabolical historically significant figures - Stalin, Saddam, Pol Pot, Ghadafi, Ceaușescu etc.. That does not mean they deserve monuments.
I meant in general terms. Jerry makes my point by this example:
The PC mob in Canada are removing statues of Sir John A. Macdonald, the country's founding father. I don't know where it's going to end. Political correctness is a major reason why almost half of Americans voted for Trump.
Wars in general are deplorable and should be avoided if at all possible. But not many people are calling for the removal of all monuments that commemorate all wars. And just what is supposed to be being accomplished by removing the monuments?
Monument - a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.
Commemorate -recall and show respect for (someone or something).
Commemorate means to remember and show respect. That doesn’t necessarily mean we have to agree with what that someone or something did to show our respect. The JFK assassination is one of the most evil events that I have encountered in my lifetime. I believe that LHO is guilty and his cowardly act offends me greatly. But I don’t believe that his monument (gravestone) should be destroyed. WTF would that accomplish?
-
Wars in general are deplorable and should be avoided if at all possible. But not many people are calling for the removal of all monuments that commemorate all wars. And just what is supposed to be being accomplished by removing the monuments?
Monument - a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.
Commemorate -recall and show respect for (someone or something).
Commemorate means to remember and show respect. That doesn’t necessarily mean we have to agree with what that someone or something did to show our respect. The JFK assassination is one of the most evil events that I have encountered in my lifetime. I believe that LHO is guilty and his cowardly act offends me greatly. But I don’t believe that his monument (gravestone) should be destroyed. WTF would that accomplish?
There is a difference between a grave marker and a monument. A grave marker does not signify public respect for the occupant. A statue in a public square does.
-
There is a difference between a grave marker and a monument. A grave marker does not signify public respect for the occupant. A statue in a public square does.
Technically, by definition, a gravestone is a monument. (See the second definition of monument in this dictionary.):
https://www.google.com/search?q=dictionary&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS922US923&oq=dict&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i273j0i433l2j5.3797j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#dobs=monument (https://www.google.com/search?q=dictionary&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS922US923&oq=dict&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i273j0i433l2j5.3797j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#dobs=monument)
If the difference between the two is supposed to be that one is on public property, then I disagree that it necessarily signifies the public’s respect. Example: It has become very popular for roads, bridges, intersections, airports, parks, etc. to be named for individuals. All of these examples are public property. And I see the signs and markers that designate the various names of people. Some who I might respect, but others who I might find go against my own opinion of being worthy of the honor. And some who I (and certainly people visiting from other places) might not be familiar with. The point is that there is no implication that the general public respects these monuments. Only that the people with authority to name the monuments want to show their appreciation. Or, perhaps, simply that the property was donated to the public by the namesake. It doesn’t matter whether or not the general public respects or even cares.
Now, if the authorities required that the general public show respect, it would be a different story.
-
Oswald was the assassin of JFK. The facts and evidence prove this beyond any doubt. We are 50 plus years down the road and there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person. At best CTers now nitpick the evidence against Oswald or attempt to apply an impossible standard of proof to imply false doubt. It is weak sauce. Just because these are vocal nuts doesn't mean that the 6th floor should entertain their baseless fantasy or be neutral about Oswald's guilt. He is not the "alleged" assassin of JFK anymore that John Wilkes Booth is the "alleged" assassin of Lincoln.
-
Oswald was the assassin of JFK. The facts and evidence prove this beyond any doubt. We are 50 plus years down the road and there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person. At best CTers now nitpick the evidence against Oswald or attempt to apply an impossible standard of proof to imply false doubt. It is weak sauce. Just because these are vocal nuts doesn't mean that the 6th floor should entertain their baseless fantasy or be neutral about Oswald's guilt. He is not the "alleged" assassin of JFK anymore that John Wilkes Booth is the "alleged" assassin of Lincoln.
It is more like they welcome all questions with equal enthusiasm. They don’t discourage the conspiracy questions by belittling the person asking it. Most of the questions that I have seen are for the guest speakers at a gathering of some type. These are usually eyewitnesses to the assassination and the audience usually has a few CT type questions for them. The museum moderators typically let the eyewitnesses answer for themselves regardless of what their personal opinions might be. It is that type of neutrality that is proper. The museum is not a haven for CTers and the related conjecture. But it doesn’t discourage that stuff by declaring it crazy either. It is fact based history that is mostly intended to educate. The museum is a treasure for those of us who value these types of things. And I am very thankful that the creators of the museum accomplished their goal.
-
I've been to the museum 4x. Each visit I spend some time just sitting there and trying to imaging what it was like that day. Imagine (if you want) Oswald firing from the window, running with his rifle across the expanse of the 6th floor, dropping the rifle and going down the stairs. I know, maybe that's all fiction but it's an incredible exercise to imagine what it would have looked like.
My only real complaint is the jewelry store exhibit of LHO's wedding band. I don't know why that is there.
I would like a red line in the floor showing the path he "might" have taken from the window to the elevator. But that's just me.
-
I've been to the museum 4x. Each visit I spend some time just sitting there and trying to imaging what it was like that day. Imagine (if you want) Oswald firing from the window, running with his rifle across the expanse of the 6th floor, dropping the rifle and going down the stairs. I know, maybe that's all fiction but it's an incredible exercise to imagine what it would have looked like.
My only real complaint is the jewelry store exhibit of LHO's wedding band. I don't know why that is there.
I would like a red line in the floor showing the path he "might" have taken from the window to the elevator. But that's just me.
My only real complaint is the jewelry store exhibit of LHO's wedding band. I don't know why that is there.
Maybe Marina didn’t want it anymore...
Just making a bad joke. Couldn’t help it...
-
Oswald was the assassin of JFK. The facts and evidence prove this beyond any doubt.
"Doubt" huh?-----Then why do you keep feeling compelled to remove it? [which you haven't even remotely]
(https://ruadventures.com/forum/Smileys/animated/tiphat.gif)
-
"Doubt" huh?-----Then why do you keep feeling compelled to remove it? [which you haven't even remotely]
(https://ruadventures.com/forum/Smileys/animated/tiphat.gif)
Because it is so easy to do.
-
Oswald was the assassin of JFK. The facts and evidence prove this beyond any doubt. We are 50 plus years down the road and there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person. At best CTers now nitpick the evidence against Oswald or attempt to apply an impossible standard of proof to imply false doubt. It is weak sauce. Just because these are vocal nuts doesn't mean that the 6th floor should entertain their baseless fantasy or be neutral about Oswald's guilt. He is not the "alleged" assassin of JFK anymore that John Wilkes Booth is the "alleged" assassin of Lincoln.
Your problem - and ours - is that most Americans disagree with this (our) view about the assassination. The 6th floor museum just can't ignore this fact. We can lament it, curse it, scream about it but that doesn't make it go away. They need to consider this fact and include it in their exhibits.
There's an increasing desire in the US at this time to suppress dissenting views. We see it all around as mostly the liberal/left is joining up with corporations to stifle views they don't like. And we know about academia. I don't like some of these views either - e.g., the election wasn't stolen from Trump and Trump didn't steal the election in 2016 - but the answer to bad speech is indeed more speech. The alternatives simply don't work.
As with the 6th Floor Museum, the response to conspiracy theories is not to ignore them but answer them with more speech. After all, isn't that what we're trying to do here? I used to be a conspiracy believer (the single bullet explanation didn't make sense but I was misled) and over time changed my mind. I can't point to an article or a book that did this; but it's clear that the more "speech" on the assassination I was exposed to made me change my mind. That's how it works.
-
There's an increasing desire in the US at this time to suppress dissenting views. We see it all around as mostly the liberal/left is joining up with corporations to stifle views they don't like. And we know about academia. I don't like some of these views either - e.g., the election wasn't stolen from Trump and Trump didn't steal the election in 2016 - but the answer to bad speech is indeed more speech. The alternatives simply don't work.
I don't see social media trying to stifle views they don't like. They are trying not to participate in disseminating false statements of fact that are harmful to the public. Before the internet that was done by news organizations. It was done voluntarily, and in most cases, with few notable exceptions, continues. It is done for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to alienate one's customers or wanting to avoid legal liability.
With the internet, Congress in its wisdom exempted internet site owners from liability for third-party content, including defamatory content. But internet site owners can still be legally liable for harm caused by information disseminated on their sites that they know about, and which a reasonable person would conclude could cause harm to members of the public or the public at large, in countries other than the U.S. And they still have a business interest in not being party to disseminating material that is harmful to the public. They are not doing anything that legitimate news organizations do not already do. U.S. law (also recognized in the USMCA trade agreement) protects them from liability for removing third-party content that the site owner considers harmful to the public interest.
-
I don't see social media trying to stifle views they don't like. They are trying not to participate in disseminating false statements of fact that are harmful to the public. Before the internet that was done by news organizations. It was done voluntarily, and in most cases, with few notable exceptions, continues. It is done for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to alienate one's customers or wanting to avoid legal liability.
With the internet, Congress in its wisdom exempted internet site owners from liability for third-party content, including defamatory content. But internet site owners can still be legal liable for harm caused by information disseminated on their sites that they know about, and which a reasonable person would conclude could cause harm to members of the public or the public at large, in countries other than the U.S. And they still have a business interest in not being party to disseminating material that is harmful to the public. They are not doing anything that legitimate news organizations do not already do. U.S. law (also recognized in the USMCA trade agreement) protects them from liability from removing third-party content that the site owner considers harmful to the public interest.
The problem is that what is "true" or "false" in a political context is often in the eye of the beholder. And it is clear that social media platforms are run by folks that are biased in their views against conservatives. The suppression of the Hunter Biden story is a classic example. There was censorship of that story that would have made Big Brother blush. If these social media platforms are going to decide what is permissible to be discussed, then they are no longer just platforms but publishers that should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. There was a time when liberals were at the forefront in the fight against censorship. Sadly that day has passed. Now they are advocates not only for censorship of stories that they do not like for political reasons but actually want to destroy the lives and careers who anyone who voices an opinion that they do not share. A Stalinist-like approach with the full cooperation of social media and the mainstream media. It is a very frightening time for free speech advocates.
-
The problem is that what is "true" or "false" in a political context is often in the eye of the beholder. And it is clear that social media platforms are run by folks that are biased in their views against conservatives. The suppression of the Hunter Biden story is a classic example. There was censorship of that story that would have made Big Brother blush. If these social media platforms are going to decide what is permissible to be discussed, then they are no longer just platforms but publishers that should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. There was a time when liberals were at the forefront in the fight against censorship. Sadly that day has passed. Now they are advocates not only for censorship of stories that they do not like for political reasons but actually want to destroy the lives and careers who anyone who voices an opinion that they do not share
There is no substance to the Hunter Biden allegations. It's moot he had no "oil-and-gas experience" because his law firm took the Burisma account to do legal work. By contrast, Joe Biden and Kamala showed great honor by not attacking the Trump family members, most of whom are leeches and some a danger to society.
One thing in need of investigation (that the conservative media--which is neither small, benign or non-influential--shut down in the closing weeks of the campaign) was how far up did the Giuliani-proffered laptop go.
A Stalinist-like approach with the full cooperation of social media and the mainstream media. It is a very frightening time for free speech advocates.
Aren't you far-rightists really just looking for a lazy means to be given a "pass" on misogynistic and racist "jokes" and offhanded comments?
-
The problem is that what is "true" or "false" in a political context is often in the eye of the beholder. And it is clear that social media platforms are run by folks that are biased in their views against conservatives. The suppression of the Hunter Biden story is a classic example. There was censorship of that story that would have made Big Brother blush.
I hate to break it to you Richard but Fox News does not always present the truth. The reason responsible news media is not covering the Hunter Biden story is because there is no story and there may never be one. It is not censorship. You are talking like a CT.
The state must not engage in fishing expeditions to see if it can dig up evidence against a person that someone suspects did something wrong. They may do that in Russia. If the FBI receives a specific complaint with evidence that Hunter Biden did something illegal, the FBI will decide whether the complain merits serious investigation. If it does, it will investigate and if sufficient evidence is found charges will be laid. Responsible news organizations don't talk about FBI investigations until a charge is laid.
If these social media platforms are going to decide what is permissible to be discussed, then they are no longer just platforms but publishers that should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. There was a time when liberals were at the forefront in the fight against censorship. Sadly that day has passed. Now they are advocates not only for censorship of stories that they do not like for political reasons but actually want to destroy the lives and careers who anyone who voices an opinion that they do not share. A Stalinist-like approach with the full cooperation of social media and the mainstream media. It is a very frightening time for free speech advocates.
You have it backwards. A free but responsible public media is an essential component of democracy. Otherwise, media platforms become instruments of propaganda. This is why Congress was all over Facebook and other social media platforms for not policing their data and allowing their platforms to be used for promulgating Russian hoaxes. Congress was hinting that in return for Safe Harbour laws given to internet service providers the public is expecting some level of control over abuse. What is wrong with holding mass social media platforms to a minimal level of responsible journalism? Or do you think that the internet equivalent of screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre should be protected free speech?
-
I don't see social media trying to stifle views they don't like. They are trying not to participate in disseminating false statements of fact that are harmful to the public. Before the internet that was done by news organizations. It was done voluntarily, and in most cases, with few notable exceptions, continues. It is done for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to alienate one's customers or wanting to avoid legal liability.
With the internet, Congress in its wisdom exempted internet site owners from liability for third-party content, including defamatory content. But internet site owners can still be legally liable for harm caused by information disseminated on their sites that they know about, and which a reasonable person would conclude could cause harm to members of the public or the public at large, in countries other than the U.S. And they still have a business interest in not being party to disseminating material that is harmful to the public. They are not doing anything that legitimate news organizations do not already do. U.S. law (also recognized in the USMCA trade agreement) protects them from liability for removing third-party content that the site owner considers harmful to the public interest.
The owners of the social media outlets - Twitter, Facebook - were forbidding people to state the allegations against the Bidens. The allegations. Merely mentioning the story, re-tweeting the NY Post story about the allegations - was not allowed. And the NY Post wasn't allowed to tweet their reports.
Nobody thinks (I don't think?) that if these allegations involved Donald Trump, Jr. and his father - either now or five years ago - that they would have suppressed the story. Do you? We've heard all sorts of allegations about Trump for the past four years. None were suppressed.
Yes, they have the right to ban whatever subject matter is being disseminated under whatever rationale. But to argue that this is simply them trying to prevent "false" information from being disseminated is, I think, missing the concern. If you don't think there isn't a ideological or political bias in their determinations then I have to disagree.
And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.
-
And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.
Then you voted for the media.
-
The owners of the social media outlets - Twitter, Facebook - were forbidding people to state the allegations against the Bidens. The allegations. Merely mentioning the story, re-tweeting the NY Post story about the allegations - was not allowed. And the NY Post wasn't allowed to tweet their reports.
Nobody thinks (I don't think?) that if these allegations involved Donald Trump, Jr. and his father - either now or five years ago - that they would have suppressed the story. Do you? We've heard all sorts of allegations about Trump for the past four years. None were suppressed.
Yes, they have the right to ban whatever subject matter is being disseminated under whatever rationale. But to argue that this is simply them trying to prevent "false" information from being disseminated is, I think, missing the concern. If you don't think there isn't a ideological or political bias in their determinations then I have to disagree.
And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.
The owners of the social media outlets - Twitter, Facebook - were forbidding people to state the allegations against the Bidens. The allegations. Merely mentioning the story, re-tweeting the NY Post story about the allegations - was not allowed. And the NY Post wasn't allowed to tweet their reports.
Making allegations is easy. Way too easy.... The Republicans made all sorts of allegations against Hillary Clinton and nothing ever became of them. Although she was never prosecuted and convicted for anything, her political career was destroyed. It was trial by media.
As Andrew Mason correctly pointed out, it's up to law enforcement to determine if a crime was committed or not. The allegations made against Hunter Biden are not yet proven and no credible evidence has so far been provided by the Republicans, yet they insist to have unverifiable allegations be made public by the media for their own political purposes in much the same way as they are now claiming all sorts of massive voter fraud where there was none.
Refusing to play their game is not censorship, it's doing the right thing. If the allegations against Hunter Biden or about the voter fraud are proven in court there is plenty of opportunity to report about it at that time.
-
Yes, they have the right to ban whatever subject matter is being disseminated under whatever rationale. But to argue that this is simply them trying to prevent "false" information from being disseminated is, I think, missing the concern. If you don't think there isn't a ideological or political bias in their determinations then I have to disagree.
Social media sites saying that there is no verifiable evidence to support the allegations is not making a determination of what is true or false. The political aspect is that the allegations are being made for political reasons, not that social media does not want to be associated with them. Do you think that judges who throw out meritless Trump legal actions for lack of evidence are operating with political bias?
As far as the allegations about Trump not being suppressed, what allegations made without supporting evidence are you talking about? Allegations about Trump wrongdoing, such as Trump paying to cover up affairs, committing sexual assaults, and trying to get the Ukrainians to start an investigation into Joe Biden were based on evidence e.g. hard documents, actual victims and official transcripts of the President's calls.
And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.
For what it's worth, I didn't. Congress passed a law that took away my vote - not because I am a convicted felon or anything like that, but merely because I am Canadian. How unfair is that?
-
Social media didn’t “stifle” the Hunter Biden story. But reputable news organizations didn’t run with it because it was unverifiable Rudy-invented tabloid nonsense. Lying “Richard” should be ashamed for uncritically swallowing it.
-
For what it's worth, I didn't. Congress passed a law that took away my vote - not because I am a convicted felon or anything like that, but merely because I am Canadian. How unfair is that?
If you’re Canadian, then you never had a vote to be taken away, did you? Or were you a US American who revoked his citizenship?
-
There is no substance to the Hunter Biden allegations. It's moot he had no "oil-and-gas experience" because his law firm took the Burisma account to do legal work. By contrast, Joe Biden and Kamala showed great honor by not attacking the Trump family members, most of whom are leeches and some a danger to society.
One thing in need of investigation (that the conservative media--which is neither small, benign or non-influential--shut down in the closing weeks of the campaign) was how far up did the Giuliani-proffered laptop go.
Aren't you far-rightists really just looking for a lazy means to be given a "pass" on misogynistic and racist "jokes" and offhanded comments?
You don't know that there was no substance to the Hunter Biden story. There is an ongoing Federal investigation. But that is not the point. The point is that the story was suppressed by the social media outlets due to political bias. Do you want information controlled by some social media weirdoes who get to decide what is permissible for the public to consider? How about let the public decide what has merit instead of some biased kooks who work for these companies? I wouldn't want any of the many fake, negative stories relating to Trump suppressed. Put them out there and let the public make their own decisions. We don't need a Big Brother being the arbiter of the truth for us.
-
I hate to break it to you Richard but Fox News does not always present the truth. The reason responsible news media is not covering the Hunter Biden story is because there is no story and there may never be one. It is not censorship. You are talking like a CT.
The state must not engage in fishing expeditions to see if it can dig up evidence against a person that someone suspects did something wrong. They may do that in Russia. If the FBI receives a specific complaint with evidence that Hunter Biden did something illegal, the FBI will decide whether the complain merits serious investigation. If it does, it will investigate and if sufficient evidence is found charges will be laid. Responsible news organizations don't talk about FBI investigations until a charge is laid.
You have it backwards. A free but responsible public media is an essential component of democracy. Otherwise, media platforms become instruments of propaganda. This is why Congress was all over Facebook and other social media platforms for not policing their data and allowing their platforms to be used for promulgating Russian hoaxes. Congress was hinting that in return for Safe Harbour laws given to internet service providers the public is expecting some level of control over abuse. What is wrong with holding mass social media platforms to a minimal level of responsible journalism? Or do you think that the internet equivalent of screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre should be protected free speech?
Maybe you need to define censorship. Twitter suspended the NY Post's account for breaking the Hunter Biden story. That is a text book example of censorship. And it was entirely due to political bias. Again, this has nothing to do with the merits of the underlyng story. If you want to believe that Russian boogeymen were behind Hunter's lap top, then so be it. But is a story that the public deserves to hear and come to their own conclusions about its merist. Just because you falsely have come to a conclusion about it, doesn't mean that others don't deserve to be given access to the information. That is classic, elitist Big Brother censorship. Someone believes they know best what is for the benefit of everyone else and all opposing views should be silenced. Traditional liberals would be shocked by that Stalinist view of the media.
-
You don't know that there was no substance to the Hunter Biden story. There is an ongoing Federal investigation. But that is not the point. The point is that the story was suppressed by the social media outlets due to political bias. Do you want information controlled by some social media weirdoes who get to decide what is permissible for the public to consider? How about let the public decide what has merit instead of some biased kooks who work for these companies? I wouldn't want any of the many fake, negative stories relating to Trump suppressed. Put them out there and let the public make their own decisions. We don't need a Big Brother being the arbiter of the truth for us.
The point is that the story was suppressed by the social media outlets due to political bias.
No it wasn't. The unproven allegations were made public, without a shred of evidence, for political reasons and to influence the election. If Guiliani had made the evidence available it might be another story, but he never did and still hasn't done so to date.
Do you want information controlled by some social media weirdoes who get to decide what is permissible for the public to consider?
What if I publish on social media, without a shred of evidence of course, the allegation that Richard Smith is a child molester and serial rapist. Would you defend my "right" to make such a story public?
How about let the public decide what has merit instead of some biased kooks who work for these companies?
What, you advocate mob justice and extrajudicial trial by public vote?
I wouldn't want any of the many fake, negative stories relating to Trump suppressed.
But what about fake stories about yourself?
-
Maybe you need to define censorship. Twitter suspended the NY Post's account for breaking the Hunter Biden story. That is a text book example of censorship. And it was entirely due to political bias. Again, this has nothing to do with the merits of the underlyng story. If you want to believe that Russian boogeymen were behind Hunter's lap top, then so be it. But is a story that the public deserves to hear and come to their own conclusions about its merist. Just because you falsely have come to a conclusion about it, doesn't mean that others don't deserve to be given access to the information. That is classic, elitist Big Brother censorship. Someone believes they know best what is for the benefit of everyone else and all opposing views should be silenced. Traditional liberals would be shocked by that Stalinist view of the media.
Under the Stalinist system the leader's false propaganda had to be published. If you refused to publish it or if you published the evidence of government abuses you ended up in the Gulag or dead. It is still much like that in Russia.
The Hunter Biden allegation was started by Trump and is being investigated at his behest by his toadies in the DOJ. Media organizations have asked to see the evidence so that they can check it out. The government refuses. So news organizations with any integrity have refused to report on it.
Who is the Stalinist here?
-
Under the Stalinist system the leader's false propaganda had to be published. If you refused to publish it or if you published the evidence of government abuses you ended up in the Gulag or dead. It is still much like that in Russia.
The Hunter Biden allegation was started by Trump and is being investigated at his behest by his toadies in the DOJ. Media organizations have asked to see the evidence so that they can check it out. The government refuses. So news organizations with any integrity have refused to report on it.
Who is the Stalinist here?
Exactly right. Richard basically wants the media to play along when Trump tries to destroy or discredit somebody with false or unproven allegations.
They did it to Hillary Clinton with the fake Benghazi investigations that came to nothing and the alleged "email scandal", in which they claimed emails had been destroyed, when in fact we recently found out they were actually still stored on a server at the ministry.
-
Maybe you need to define censorship. Twitter suspended the NY Post's account for breaking the Hunter Biden story. That is a text book example of censorship.
Wrong again, “Richard”. Censorship is when the government suppresses speech. Twitter isn’t the government.
And it was entirely due to political bias. Again, this has nothing to do with the merits of the underlyng story.
There were no merits to the underlying story. It was Rudy-fabricated tabloid nonsense to try to sway the election.
-
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
-
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
Thanks for the unsourced cut-and-paste from Wikipedia. Please explain how Twitter is a “controlling body”.
-
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
That is not the definition of censorship. That comes from somebody on Wikipedia. And you can see from the talk page discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship#Definition?)that there was disagreement among the contributors to that page on such a definition. So much for Wikipedia. By that definition, Twitter suppressing ISIS posts calling for death to America is censorship; white supremacists posting racist hate speech being denied access to Facebook etc. would be censorship. That is not what most people mean by censorship.
-
Under the Stalinist system the leader's false propaganda had to be published. If you refused to publish it or if you published the evidence of government abuses you ended up in the Gulag or dead. It is still much like that in Russia.
The Hunter Biden allegation was started by Trump and is being investigated at his behest by his toadies in the DOJ. Media organizations have asked to see the evidence so that they can check it out. The government refuses. So news organizations with any integrity have refused to report on it.
Who is the Stalinist here?
Did social media allow stories to run about Trump's taxes that were illegally obtained and never provided for inspection? Of course they did. They ran that story for weeks without anyone "checking it out" because the tax returns were never made available for review. No major news outlet had their account suspended for reporting that story. There is obvious bias and censorship for political purposes. Everyone should be concerned that social media is censoring speech on the basis of political bias. They are operating as a Stalinist propaganda arm of the dem party. Why be afraid of information and want it to be covered up by Big Brother? Liberals used to be advocates of free speech. Very sad.
-
The point is that the story was suppressed by the social media outlets due to political bias.
No it wasn't. The unproven allegations were made public, without a shred of evidence, for political reasons and to influence the election. If Guiliani had made the evidence available it might be another story, but he never did and still hasn't done so to date.
Do you want information controlled by some social media weirdoes who get to decide what is permissible for the public to consider?
What if I publish on social media, without a shred of evidence of course, the allegation that Richard Smith is a child molester and serial rapist. Would you defend my "right" to make such a story public?
How about let the public decide what has merit instead of some biased kooks who work for these companies?
What, you advocate mob justice and extrajudicial trial by public vote?
I wouldn't want any of the many fake, negative stories relating to Trump suppressed.
But what about fake stories about yourself?
You didn't have these same concerns when there were reports from the NY Times about Trump's taxes. They never made the tax returns available to anyone for inspection of their accuracy. If they were obtained, then it was done illegally because Trump never authorized disclosure as required by federal law. But that story was widely reported and social media had no apparent issue with anyone reporting it there despite the lack of any verification. They certainly did not suspend the NY Times' account as a result like they did with the NY Post. That is clear censorship based upon political bias.
And you are wildly confused about the issue under discussion. Of course no one wants false information reported about them on social media. That is why individuals have recourse to libel actions. Individuals can be sued for writing false information. Social media platforms, however, are protected by federal law from such lawsuits because they are supposed to be platforms for the exchange of information (like a telephone company) and not publishers. Imagine if your telephone carrier broke into your conversation to tell you that you couldn't discuss certain topics because they didn't like your opinion or that your telephone access would be suspended if you discussed the Hunter Biden story. Social media platforms are acting like arbiters of the truth instead of platform providers. If they decide to do so, then they should be subject to suit like anyone else.
-
You didn't have these same concerns when there were reports from the NY Times about Trump's taxes. They never made the tax returns available to anyone for inspection of their accuracy. If they were obtained, then it was done illegally because Trump never authorized disclosure as required by federal law. But that story was widely reported and social media had no apparent issue with anyone reporting it there despite the lack of any verification. They certainly did not suspend the NY Times' account as a result like they did with the NY Post. That is clear censorship based upon political bias.
And you are wildly confused about the issue under discussion. Of course no one wants false information reported about them on social media. That is why individuals have recourse to libel actions. Individuals can be sued for writing false information. Social media platforms, however, are protected by federal law from such lawsuits because they are supposed to be platforms for the exchange of information (like a telephone company) and not publishers. Imagine if your telephone carrier broke into your conversation to tell you that you couldn't discuss certain topics because they didn't like your opinion or that your telephone access would be suspended if you discussed the Hunter Biden story. Social media platforms are acting like arbiters of the truth instead of platform providers. If they decide to do so, then they should be subject to suit like anyone else.
Every week, if not every day, at this site (and other JFK assassination forums/sites) conspiracy believers make allegations against all sorts of people and claim they either murdered JFK or were involved in the conspiracy to do so. And not just historic and dead people like an LBJ or an Hoover but ordinary people, some still alive, like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer.
The same people who say that social media was right to suppress unproven allegations against Biden (but no one else?) seem to be quite silent about allegations being posted here. If you're against disseminating unproven allegations then this site and every other assassination-related site would have to essentially shut down.
Shorter me: somebody is full of baloney.
-
Every week, if not every day, at this site (and other JFK assassination forums/sites) conspiracy believers make allegations against all sorts of people and claim they either murdered JFK or were involved in the conspiracy to do so. And not just historic and dead people like an LBJ or an Hoover but ordinary people, some still alive, like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer.
The same people who say that social media was right to suppress unproven allegations against Biden (but no one else?) seem to be quite silent about allegations being posted here. If you're against disseminating unproven allegations then this site and every other assassination-related site would have to essentially shut down.
Shorter me: somebody is full of baloney.
That is an excellent point. I wish I had made it!
-
Did social media allow stories to run about Trump's taxes that were illegally obtained and never provided for inspection?
Wrong again, “Richard”. The NY Times was given copies of the actual returns.
-
Individuals can be sued for writing false information.
Who would they sue? Somebody pretending to be named “Richard Smith”?
Twitter is not a public forum. You have to abide by their terms of service. Just like Duncan can kick your ass off here if you break his rules.
-
There is no confirmation that the NY Times was ever given Trump's actual tax returns. That is another falsehood. They claimed to have "data" from the tax returns but have never confirmed the source of such data. Nor did they make the "data" available to anyone else for confirmation. The story was reported by every liberal media outlet without any independent verification of the accuracy of its content because they had no access to the underlying source material or even know the source. They just reported the information as fact without verification. In direct contrast to how they handled the Hunter Biden story which we now know is the source of a federal investigation.
-
The ignorance of the contrarians is astounding. We are told that Twitter is a "not a public forum" and therefore can do as they please. Of course that has nothing to do with the issue. Social media platforms are protected by federal law (section 230) from being legally responsible for what others say because they are intended to operate as platform providers for users. Like your telephone service. They are given this protection to promote free speech because they are not supposed to act as publishers that control the content. They can certainly decide to do so but then they should surrender the protections of the federal law that have been afforded to them. But they want to have it both ways. Determining content like a publisher and being free from any legal liability for the content. If Twitter or Facebook want to be arbiters of content instead of platform providers, then they can do that. But then they should forfeit the protections of the law.
-
The ignorance of the contrarians is astounding. We are told that Twitter is a "not a public forum" and therefore can do as they please. Of course that has nothing to do with the issue. Social media platforms are protected by federal law (section 230) from being legally responsible for what others say because they are intended to operate as platform providers for users. Like your telephone service. They are given this protection to promote free speech because they are not supposed to act as publishers that control the content. They can certainly decide to do so but then they should surrender the protections of the federal law that have been afforded to them. But they want to have it both ways. Determining content like a publisher and being free from any legal liability for the content. If Twitter or Facebook want to be arbiters of content instead of platform providers, then they can do that. But then they should forfeit the protections of the law.
Why can't they have it both ways? In fact Chapter 47 US Code, the Communications Decency Act, s. 230(c) does just that. It says:
230(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
One could argue that the "safe harbour" privilege was granted (in subsection 230(c)(1)) on the understanding that providers will (under (2)) control harmful content by placing good-faith restrictions on content. A political bias is not a "good faith" reason for restricting content. But preventing users from spreading allegations created by Russian trolls (in order to get a political result and undermine U.S. democracy) is.
-
There is no confirmation that the NY Times was ever given Trump's actual tax returns. That is another falsehood. They claimed to have "data" from the tax returns but have never confirmed the source of such data. Nor did they make the "data" available to anyone else for confirmation. The story was reported by every liberal media outlet without any independent verification of the accuracy of its content because they had no access to the underlying source material or even know the source. They just reported the information as fact without verification. In direct contrast to how they handled the Hunter Biden story which we now know is the source of a federal investigation.
The NYTimes had to use pieces of his tax returns that were made public disclosed by anonymous sources:
"What we’re left with are scraps from Mr. Trump’s voluminous tax filings that have been leaked to the news media by anonymous sources: his federal Form 1040 from 2005, disclosed last week by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, and a few pages of his 1995 state tax returns, which include some data from that year’s 1040, revealed by The New York Times last fall.
The documents themselves showed that they were actual pages from his returns. All Trump had to do to challenge them if they were not actual pages from his tax returns is to do what every President in the past 50 years has done: release his tax returns.
-
The NYTimes had to use pieces of his tax returns that were made public disclosed by anonymous sources:
The documents themselves showed that they were actual pages from his returns. All Trump had to do to challenge them if they were not actual pages from his tax returns is to do what every President in the past 50 years has done: release his tax returns.
LOL. Anonymous sources! So that makes them authentic? But Hunter's situation is somehow entirely different? Wow. I'm all for the NY Times publishing information about Trump's taxes. Everyone in a free society can come to their own conclusions about them. I can't understand why Dems are so enthusiastic that these social media platforms censoring information on their behalf. A very disturbing trend for any fair minded person. It is mind boggling that the liberals are now the ones promoting censorship and endless foreign wars. The one thing that they historically got correct was opposition to such matters.
-
You didn't have these same concerns when there were reports from the NY Times about Trump's taxes. They never made the tax returns available to anyone for inspection of their accuracy. If they were obtained, then it was done illegally because Trump never authorized disclosure as required by federal law. But that story was widely reported and social media had no apparent issue with anyone reporting it there despite the lack of any verification. They certainly did not suspend the NY Times' account as a result like they did with the NY Post. That is clear censorship based upon political bias.
No it isn't. The details of some tax returns being made public were not designed to influence an election. The Hunter Biden lies had influencing the election as it's only real purpose. That is one hell of a difference.
And you are wildly confused about the issue under discussion. Of course no one wants false information reported about them on social media. That is why individuals have recourse to libel actions. Individuals can be sued for writing false information.
Sure, they can sue, but that takes time and lots of it. In the meantime the fake story would have influenced the election in just the same way as the alleged e-mail scandal influenced the 2016 election. And, what's more, who are those individuals you can sue when they write a newspaper report based upon information provided to them by a third party?
Social media platforms, however, are protected by federal law from such lawsuits because they are supposed to be platforms for the exchange of information (like a telephone company) and not publishers.
And Trump, with all the lies he has told, has benefited greatly from this.
Imagine if your telephone carrier broke into your conversation to tell you that you couldn't discuss certain topics because they didn't like your opinion or that your telephone access would be suspended if you discussed the Hunter Biden story.
That's a BS comparison. A telephone conversation is private between two people. You don't have phone calls where all the world can hear what's being said.
Social media platforms are acting like arbiters of the truth instead of platform providers. If they decide to do so, then they should be subject to suit like anyone else.
They only take action in the rarest of cases. If, as you suggest, they act like arbiters of the truth, Trump's twitter account would look significantly different from how it looks today.
-
LOL. Anonymous sources! So that makes them authentic? But Hunter's situation is somehow entirely different? Wow. I'm all for the NY Times publishing information about Trump's taxes. Everyone in a free society can come to their own conclusions about them. I can't understand why Dems are so enthusiastic that these social media platforms censoring information on their behalf. A very disturbing trend for any fair minded person. It is mind boggling that the liberals are now the ones promoting censorship and endless foreign wars. The one thing that they historically got correct was opposition to such matters.
What endless foreign wars are you speaking about? The Gulf war/Iraq invasion/ISIS war that was started and ramped up under the Republicans? Or war in Afghanistan to remove the terrorist Taliban that was started under Republicans?
-
If, as you suggest, they act like arbiters of the truth, Trump's twitter account would look significantly different from how it looks today.
Well said. But if I was in charge of Twitter, I would ban Trump right now. He is showing serious signs that he is losing his mind and is liable to use his twitter feed to call for the mobilization of U.S. troops against Biden's inauguration. I would have the legal and moral right to not facilitate that call to arms.
-
Why didn’t they let anyone examine the alleged hard drive, “Richard”?
Anyone can mock up an “email” to say anything they want it to.
-
No it isn't. The details of some tax returns being made public were not designed to influence an election. The Hunter Biden lies had influencing the election as it's only real purpose. That is one hell of a difference.
That's the single greatest whopper in the history of the forum! So the NY Times releasing Trump's alleged tax information on the day before the first debate was not designed to influence the election? HA HA HA. Unreal. Hunter is under an actual federal investigation. And you think this story should have been covered up because it could have influenced the election by, for example, demonstrating that the Biden family was corrupt and on the payroll of several foreign governments. I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves. Big Brother needs to decide for them what they need to know.
-
That's the single greatest whopper in the history of the forum! So the NY Times releasing Trump's alleged tax information on the day before the first debate was not designed to influence the election? HA HA HA. Unreal. Hunter is under an actual federal investigation. And you think this story should have been covered up because it could have influenced the election by, for example, demonstrating that the Biden family was corrupt and on the payroll of several foreign governments. I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves. Big Brother needs to decide for them what they need to know.
Ending a four year long drama of lies by Trump about his tax returns by saying that he only paid $750 in taxes per year is the same as accusing, without a shred of evidence, an entire family of being corrupt and on the payroll of foreign governments ?
Hunter is under an actual federal investigation.
So what? That doesn't make him guilty. People are being investigated all the time and not all of them are charged with a crime. In Hunter's case it seems the investigation has been going on for 2 years and has only recently shifted to his taxes after they couldn't find anything else on him. The mere fact that he hasn't been arrested or charged (like for instance Steve Bannon was) should tell you something.
I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves.
You guessed correctly. The American public are not prosecutors and are in no position to make any kind of determination based only on media reports. Perhaps the best indicator on just how bad some Americans are in making decisions is the fact that 74 million people voted for Trump. If any of those people had even a little bit common sense there would be a lot less Trump followers. Point in case; you are part of the American public and I would be scared to death if you were trusted to make any kind of decision.
Look at what happened to Smartmatic and Dominion. Now that they have threatend with massive law suits Fox News and Newsmax instantly admitted that there was no evidence whatsoever for the allegations against the two companies they have been airing for months. Yet, despite that there are still millions of idiots who continue to believe the bogus stories.
-
That's the single greatest whopper in the history of the forum! So the NY Times releasing Trump's alleged tax information on the day before the first debate was not designed to influence the election? HA HA HA. Unreal. Hunter is under an actual federal investigation. And you think this story should have been covered up because it could have influenced the election by, for example, demonstrating that the Biden family was corrupt and on the payroll of several foreign governments.
The difference is that the public has a right to know about a candidate for president's tax returns and the fact that he paid no taxes. Besides, if the information was incorrect Trump could have produced his tax returns.
The public does not have a right to know if a candidate's adult son is being investigated. They only have a right to know if and when charges are laid. This is well established DOJ policy. This is particularly sensitive when the allegations being investigated originated from a political adversary.
I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves. Big Brother needs to decide for them what they need to know.
Social media is no more "big brother" in the U.S. than any responsible news publisher such as the NYTimes, Washington Post, NBC, or CBS. [the non-inclusion of Fox News is intentional].
-
The difference is that the public has a right to know about a candidate for president's tax returns and the fact that he paid no taxes. Besides, if the information was incorrect Trump could have produced his tax returns.
The public does not have a right to know if a candidate's adult son is being investigated. They only have a right to know if and when charges are laid. This is well established DOJ policy. This is particularly sensitive when the allegations being investigated originated from a political adversary.
Social media is no more "big brother" in the U.S. than any responsible news publisher such as the NYTimes, Washington Post, NBC, or CBS. [the non-inclusion of Fox News is intentional].
Wow. The public doesn't have the right to know certain information? Wow. That is right out of the Stalinist playbook. You and social media should determine what information the public should or shouldn't be allowed to know? Very scary. That exemplifies the biased, elitist culture. There is a clear bias in the media against Trump. There are any number of examples. We were told his Supreme Court nominees were going to overturn Obama Care. False. That they were going to side with him to overturn the election results. False. That the post office was not going to deliver mail in ballots. False. That there would be widespread violence if Trump lost the election. False. That Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election. False. That the Hunter Biden story was the product of "Russian disinformation." False.
-
Ending a four year long drama of lies by Trump about his tax returns by saying that he only paid $750 in taxes per year is the same as accusing, without a shred of evidence, an entire family of being corrupt and on the payroll of foreign governments ?
Hunter is under an actual federal investigation.
So what? That doesn't make him guilty. People are being investigated all the time and not all of them are charged with a crime. In Hunter's case it seems the investigation has been going on for 2 years and has only recently shifted to his taxes after they couldn't find anything else on him. The mere fact that he hasn't been arrested or charged (like for instance Steve Bannon was) should tell you something.
I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves.
You guessed correctly. The American public are not prosecutors and are in no position to make any kind of determination based only on media reports. Perhaps the best indicator on just how bad some Americans are in making decisions is the fact that 74 million people voted for Trump. If any of those people had even a little bit common sense there would be a lot less Trump followers. Point in case; you are part of the American public and I would be scared to death if you were trusted to make any kind of decision.
Look at what happened to Smartmatic and Dominion. Now that they have threatend with massive law suits Fox News and Newsmax instantly admitted that there was no evidence whatsoever for the allegations against the two companies they have been airing for months. Yet, despite that there are still millions of idiots who continue to believe the bogus stories.
So many words. Do you have any sort of life? You seem to be on here day and night. A media covered up FBI report today indicated that Iranian trolls were responsible for death threats against elections officials in Georgia that were falsely attributed to Trump supporters. Here we are told by Martin/Roger that Americans can't be trusted to come to conclusions. We are simply too dumb and need a class of nut jobs to lead us. Wow. That is outright 1984 nonsense. The least intelligent and craziest shall lead us.
-
So many words. Do you have any sort of life? You seem to be on here day and night.
Weidmann spends far too much time with his best friends Tom, Jack and Jim. Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink.
-
Wow. The public doesn't have the right to know certain information? Wow. That is right out of the Stalinist playbook. You and social media should determine what information the public should or shouldn't be allowed to know? Very scary.
So if your next-door neighbour who has a grudge against you reports to the police that you are running a pedophile ring in your basement and he saw you drinking the blood of babies, you would be ok with Twitter letting him broadcast that you are being investigated by police for that?
That exemplifies the biased, elitist culture. There is a clear bias in the media against Trump. There are any number of examples. We were told his Supreme Court nominees were going to overturn Obama Care. False.
First of all, they just expressed concern that SCOTUS would overturn the ACA based on their past record and the replacement of Justice Ginsberg with Justice Coney-Barrett. Second, it is not yet decided so we don't know the result.
That they were going to side with him to overturn the election results. False.
Again, concerns were expressed. Nothing wrong with that.
That the post office was not going to deliver mail in ballots. False.
So you know as a fact that all mail-in ballots were delivered on time? They were not. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/05/usps-late-ballots-election/) And in Georgia and Arizona late ballots are not counted.
That there would be widespread violence if Trump lost the election. False.
Trump won the election in a landslide, according to Trump. So the violence that may occur will be after the inauguration of Biden.
That Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election. False.
So Trump predicting the release of information from the Russian hacked DNC server was blind luck? The only reason we do not know more about Trump's connections to the Russians is because Trump and his cronies, such as Paul Manafort, obstructed Mueller's investigation.
That the Hunter Biden story was the product of "Russian disinformation." False.
Oh, they let you analyse the laptop that Rudy Giuliani got from the Russians that supposedly contain the smoking gun emails?
-
Wow. The public doesn't have the right to know certain information?
Rudy’s fabricated tabloid gossip isn’t “information” any more than “Richard Smith’s” fabricated name is.
-
So if your next-door neighbour who has a grudge against you reports to the police that you are running a pedophile ring in your basement and he saw you drinking the blood of babies, you would be ok with Twitter letting him broadcast that you are being investigated by police for that?
First of all, they just expressed concern that SCOTUS would overturn the ACA based on their past record and the replacement of Justice Ginsberg with Justice Coney-Barrett. Second, it is not yet decided so we don't know the result.Again, concerns were expressed. Nothing wrong with that.So you know as a fact that all mail-in ballots were delivered on time? They were not. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/05/usps-late-ballots-election/) And in Georgia and Arizona late ballots are not counted.Trump won the election in a landslide, according to Trump. So the violence that may occur will be after the inauguration of Biden.So Trump predicting the release of information from the Russian hacked DNC server was blind luck? The only reason we do not know more about Trump's connections to the Russians is because Trump and his cronies, such as Paul Manafort, obstructed Mueller's investigation. Oh, they let you analyse the laptop that Rudy Giuliani got from the Russians that supposedly contain the smoking gun emails?
Again, no one wants anything negative reported about them on social media or any other source. Particularly if it is false.
That is not the issue. Here is the actual point. If a newspaper, TV station, or book publisher makes a false report about someone, that person has recourse to a lawsuit against them for libel or defamation. But social media platforms are protected under federal law from such suits because they are not supposed to operate as publishers but as platform providers for others to provide content. Like your telephone company. Can you understand the difference? A newspaper or TV station decides what story they wish to run. As a result, they are responsible for the content. A social media platform or telephone service does not supply the content. Customers or users do so.
A social media platform is protected because they are not supposed to be involved in content. And to facilitate the use of these platforms, they are not held legally responsible for what others say on those platforms. The user can be sued because they are the "publisher" or content provider of the story - not the social media provider. So here is the point. If social media providers decide not to act just as platform providers but as arbiters of content, then they become more like content providers. In which case, they should become subject to liability for defamatory conduct. They want to have it both ways, however. They want to be free from liability but also to decide what content is worthy for inclusion and what is not. They have every right to make those rules for their users. But if they decide to become involved in content (e.g. deciding which stories are permissible and which are not to be discussed), they should forfeit the protections of federal law from lawsuits.
-
Again, no one wants anything negative reported about them on social media or any other source. Particularly if it is false.
That is not the issue. Here is the actual point. If a newspaper, TV station, or book publisher makes a false report about someone, that person has recourse to a lawsuit against them for libel or defamation. But social media platforms are protected under federal law from such suits because they are not supposed to operate as publishers but as platform providers for others to provide content. Like your telephone company. Can you understand the difference? A newspaper or TV station decides what story they wish to run. As a result, they are responsible for the content. A social media platform or telephone service does not supply the content. Customers or users do so.
A social media platform is protected because they are not supposed to be involved in content. And to facilitate the use of these platforms, they are not held legally responsible for what others say on those platforms. The user can be sued because they are the "publisher" or content provider of the story - not the social media provider. So here is the point. If social media providers decide not to act just as platform providers but as arbiters of content, then they become more like content providers. In which case, they should become subject to liability for defamatory conduct. They want to have it both ways, however. They want to be free from liability but also to decide what content is worthy for inclusion and what is not. They have every right to make those rules for their users. But if they decide to become involved in content (e.g. deciding which stories are permissible and which are not to be discussed), they should forfeit the protections of federal law from lawsuits.
That is one perspective - one shared by Trump. But it is not what was intended by Congress. Congress specifically allowed exercise of good-faith control over content. The trade off for free flow of ideas by anonymous posts is the right of hosts to exercise control of content that they consider objectionable/harmful.
-
... So the violence that may occur will be after the inauguration of Biden.
I guess I underestimated the stupidity of Trump and the zeal of his disciples.
-
I guess I underestimated the stupidity of Trump and the zeal of his disciples.
And so, I guess with that all said...the 6th Floor museum seems to have completely lost its touch ::)