Personal Attacks

[Moderated: explaining a personal attack doesn't make it not be a personal attack.]

 

Is this an official moderatorial edict? Because if so, trying to argue with you is normally against the rules.

 

The Department of Homeland Security is setting up a Disinformation Governance Board to try to counter the spread of false information. Reporting is that the board will focus on disinformation coming from Russia as well as misleading messages about the U.S.-Mexico border. Based on the right acting like their hair is on fire and then calling it the George Orwell's Ministry of Truth in this forum with zero opinion being thrown into the mix is about as close to a troll post as I can imagine. That is not something that I imagine should be reported though? I haven't read the DegreeInfo Terms of Service in many years but I'd be surprised is trolling like that would be against the TOS?

Now personal attacks I'm sure are against the TOS though.

 

That's why I asked if the above was said in official capacity.

 

Actually, I believe you do an excellent job as a moderator, as does the Maniac. I really appreciate the job that you folks do. THANK YOU!

 

You're right on that. Huzzah to moderators!

 

It's hard, and you do an admirable job. So many moderators let their personal biases affect their decisions; I haven't seen you doing that. Thanks!

 

Musk will buy that DGB to insure free speech just joking.
I speculate if DGB will be politicized based on who is in WH? Like alleged controversy of some agencies in the past.

 

There should be no such government entity in the United States. It is an affront to the First Amendment.

 

I'm sure that if any government agency started routinely suppressing free speech that the courts would very quickly put a stop to it. You are flat out wrong though that the first amendment protects lies especially when spread by a foreign government like Russia. Why does it upset you if the US government corrects Russian disinformation? Or does something else about this upset you?

 

After further research here's the situation. In general, it's true that the First Amendment is designed to further the pursuit of truth.

However, I found an example where a lie actually is protected by the first amendment.

quote:
In United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ____ (2012), the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which was designed to punish individuals who made false claims, not about others, but about their own military service. In striking down the law, the Supreme Court thus refused to expand the limited number of categories, like obscenity, true threats, and libel, where it permitted restrictions on the actual content of speech. Essentially, the justices thought that this was an issue that should be resolved in free and open debate rather than by government action. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1506/false-speech

Note that this does not mean that the speech of foreign governments is protected speech in the USA though.

 

Thing is... disinformation is perhaps the biggest threat to national security - given russia threat and the adversary's formidable expertise in lying. I can't imagine what kind of American would want his country to fail to address this threat. The same kind, perhaps, that would willingly spread foreign lies, like pretty much anything from Sputnik News.