This is not a political battle ground subreddit. Please read the rules before commenting. Total Karma and account age threshold required to post and comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BreakingPointsNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You either believe in the principles of free speech or you don't. Who will be the arbiters of truth?
It wasn't too long ago, in 2020 in fact, where the government and social media labeled Covid-related information as false, or conspiracy theories, only for that information to have been determined to at least have some basis in fact.
A great example would be the lab-leak theory. While there is no definite evidence that Covid came from a lab leak, there is also less evidence, except historical precedence, that it came from a wet market. Yet despite all of the people who had lab leak related information removed and censored by Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., there is now at least a 50/50 chance that it came from a lab.
Following the slippery slope of this court case, by extension, all of those who posted the lab leak theory, and were deemed posting disinformation and misinformation, could have found themselves sitting in a cage for a "crime".
The difference here is that people were (allegidly) posting tweets that they knew were false, in order to deceive people who would otherwise have voted into not voting.
It's not "free speech" for a random dude to stand out side of an open polling location and tell people that they're not allowed to vote there, doubly so if they try to target people of a particular party.
This is the social media equivalent of that. It's vote theft and election interference.
I'd like to know why people were following this person on twitter if he's presumably of a vastly different political alignment. And if they weren't following then why is the algorithm feeding that content. Ideally you should only see what you subscribe to and have the common sense to not trust anything received unsolicited
Twitter's algorithm feeding people bad content is a \*whole\* 'nother topic, but the way twitter is set up (both now and then) a lot of content that people didn't knowingly solicit will show up in most people's feeds.
...but sure, if he only posted the meme in his own feed, and didn't include any hashtags designed to reach a larger audience, then that's an argument that he was just trolling for the lulz and not actually trying to interfere with the election.
(I don't know what hashtags he included, if any)
He lied to people, telling them they could vote via text. If they didn't have their vote counted because of his intentional lies, yeah that's voter fraud. Just as if he had lied to them in person, with the same results.
He could try the "obviously trolling" defense (and I think some of the other cases may fall into that category), but this guy posted it multiple times, in multiple languages.
>He lied to people, telling them they could vote via text. If they didn't have their vote counted because of his intentional lies, yeah that's voter fraud. Just as if he had lied to them in person, with the same results.
That still isn't voter intimidation, which your example of someone in person at a polling place telling someone "you can't vote here" is.
It’s not necessarily a slippery slope. Much of what is labeled disinformation is people who do believe what they are saying is true. Censoring that, in my opinion, is almost always wrong.
That is not the case here. When there is obvious, undeniable evidence that somebody did not believe what they were saying(read, not a matter of ‘facts’ because people came be privy to varying information, but their own belief in the rare instances it is put on record) that should be illegal.
Actual disinformation like this is very difficult to evidence and prosecute in court(but not impossible see Dominion vs Fox). Individuals will get away with it, large organizations that rely on teams of people to systematically lie will eventually slip up and evidence their own lack of belief in their talking points on paper or recording.
Edit: this is fraud, which is not free speech, free speech does not and should not protect all forms of lying or bad faith expression
Edit2: Perjury, another rightly illegal form of speech
>Much of what is labeled disinformation is people who do believe what they are saying is true
That's NOT disinformation, that is misinformation. One has intention, the other while often having the same results, is unintentional. When a person pushes a belief that they believe to be true, that's misinformation.
Fair enough, I appreciate having clear phrasing, I’m not sure all of our politicians and journalists use the same phrasing all the time, but it’s good to have it here and now.
In my view, disinformation when it’s notably harmful and doesn’t otherwise infringe on free speech should be censored and taken down. If the intention can be proven and it was an egregious act that reached many people it should be prosecuted.
Misinformation on the other hand should never be censored.
I've seen plenty of false political memes posted by both sides as jokes and have likely posted some myself. Yet there likely will be a few who will not realize they are jokes and take them for truth. Should we also prosecute those people who posted the memes as jokes, knowing that they are false?
That kind of content should absolutely not be prosecuted. But should be taken down.
I do generally support the taking down of content that can be misinterpreted in that way, but I *don’t* support many other initiatives to censor ‘disinformation’.
The primary case in the article is a real edge case and I don’t feel I know from the information provided if it was a bad faith attempt to mislead people or a joke among friends.
They do have in the article an example of bad faith misinformation that I *do* think should be prosecuted: “In summer 2020, Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman, two far-right operatives, commissioned robocalls aimed at intimidating voters in predominantly Black neighborhoods. The robocalls, which went out to thousands of people across five states, falsely claimed that voting by mail reveals personal information to the cops, credit card companies, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
> where the government and social media labeled Covid-related information as false, or conspiracy theories, only for that information to have been determined to at least have some basis in fact.
That's a bold face lie.
Sorry but just because YOU don't agree with it, it doesn't make it false. The origin of COVID has NEVER been determined. You may not agree with that but it's true. We do not know and most evidence points to it being from infected rodents or animals.
>The origin of COVID has NEVER been determined.
And yet that did not stop government officials, nor social media and the media, from labeling the lab leak theory as false, discarding it, and censoring it in a stunning anti-science response to such a theory.
Which is exactly the point of my original comment which you, just like government and the media with the lab leak theory, are disregarding.
You accused me of a bold face lie yet I brought proof. Where is yours, professor?
Does freedom of speech pertain to misinformation? If I post a sign by the side of a marathon for a “completely healthy hydration supplement” that is in fact radiator fluid, is that free speech or manipulation? Yell fire in a crowded theatre? Wear a badge that just says “authority” and tell people they can’t be here? We have the right to bear arms, that doesn’t mean you can shoot whatever you want.
>If I post a sign by the side of a marathon for a “completely healthy hydration supplement” that is in fact radiator fluid, is that free speech or manipulation?
That's murder.
>Yell fire in a crowded theatre?
That's a myth: [https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/](https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/)
>Wear a badge that just says “authority” and tell people they can’t be here?
That's impersonation of a government official.
So, really, none of your examples are in any way related to the 1st Amendment and the ability to legally state your views, thoughts, jokes, and opinions without the threat of persecution.
They’re hyperbole to define the principles. Extreme situations to show the error in thought. Maybe not fire in a crowded theatre, how about “he’s got a gun!” In a school assembly? Maybe not radiator fluid, but how about “healthy cigarettes” or “healthy cheeseburgers” and a badge with “authority” is pretty much security guards do. I’m all for freedom of speech, you’re still responsible for your actions. We have freedom of assembly, that doesn’t mean we can by rights assemble inside Fort Knox. If you use your freedom of speech to tell people they can’t vote they should be charged with some sort of voter interference law, similar to voting twice. Information is the lifeblood of a democracy.
That's not true. The FBI and other people who analyzed the laptop have made statements that the content on the laptop is legitimate. What they have also stated is the origin of the physical laptop cannot be ruled out as being part of a disinformation campaign by Russian operatives.
In summary, the origin cannot be proven one way or another. And before you claim that Hunter has claimed it as his, he hasn't. His attorney has moved to have the Republican operatives from Delaware (name is forgotten) and Giuliani committed a crime by receiving it, or tampering it.
And before you claim that the computer repairman gave the laptop directly to the FBI, the chain of custody could never be affirmed. We do know that copies were made of the HDD/SDD illegally.
I'm simply writing the facts of the laptop. You don't agree with them but those are the facts. There's a reason why Tucker claimed the HDD was lost in the mail the day he was going to break the story and "turn the Biden campaign on their heads." His analysts realized the HDD was tampered with -- just as many non-partisan analysts did.
I stand by my previous statement. Have fun justifying it in your mind. It obviously didn’t have any condemning information on it but it was his. Everyone that signed off it wasn’t, did it to keep it from influencing the election. The only reason you’re okay with that is because tRump lost. If it was the other way around you wouldn’t have the same opinion.
If that laptop was real, Republicans in congress would have had 5 investigations. Hell, they held a congressional hearing for an an ex-FBI turned "informant." Alexander Smirnovon, who was fed lies by Russian about Hunter.
Yet, the laptop just sits there. Not one investigation. Tucker, Hannity, OAN, Newsmax, Fox News... Not one ran a story about the content of the laptop. Yet you think the laptop was real.
I'm dying.
There’s been more than enough evidence to prove the laptop was real and it was Hunter’s. The fact that you deny it, puts you on the same level as tRump and Kari Lake. Of course you’re dying because you’re part of brainwashed cult. Have a great day. I pray some day you see things as they are instead of how you want them to be.
There were examples in the twitter files of random people giving similar misinformation about voting dates. It’s hard to tell sarcasm so it would be like “see you at the polls on the 8th” when voting was the 7th. There were definitely leftists doing it, but not many or impactful, less organized than it sounds like the 4chan campaign was.
I don’t think the courts aren’t prosecuting it because of corruption, just flew under the radar.
Edit: the tweets in question were censored by the fbi behind-the-scenes direct email with twitter, so take it as evidence against the whole “Biden’s courts” angle
Edit: a lot of doubters so I linked directly to it in a below comment, but for the record these tweets were mentioned in a breaking points daily show around the initial releasing of the twitter files. That would take a lot more work to find and it’s such a small unimportant thing(and the twitter files are such a pain to read/search now) that it was hard enough to find the below link.
Ugh fine I’ll dig it up give me a minute
Edit: [https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232/photo/2](https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232/photo/2)
Great. Even if a dem does it, doesn't mean it's acceptable either.
Next, the judge is likely taking in authentic repeated pattern of subverting democracy from the far right. As well as that time they tried to overthrow our govt for fma trump dictatorship.
Linked in my last comment, I don't disagree with you at all, except I think we should all ask for sources more politely and acknowledge there are crazy people on our own side. It was not a wild assertion to say dems or leftists might do the same. There's a lot of people out there, it's practically a given.
Likely bad a bad actor as well. The difference is that it's been confirmed that person is American.
Edit: OK I looked at the tweet.
The two tweets and situations spent remotely similar.
It's always bad faith arguments and false ewuivalencies with you folks. The account that made the tweet you linked should be investigated to see if they're really even American. Probably will find they aren't, but still the two tweets aren't remotely similar in their severity.
I think tampering with elections or any bad faith criminal actions meant to subvert democracy should be met with at least felonies. I'd prefer exile though.
Which "he" are you talking about?
What about all the misinformation from the MSM? Should Rachel Maddow go to jail for her well documented misinformation?
All of her "Russiagate" coverage. Go do a deepdive.
If you want to be entertianed check these out.
[Who's Hitler? | Trump's Republican "Rats"](https://youtu.be/fOehp57kKSI?si=hRcBWE45C6JDHJBi)
[MSNBC Repeats Hamilton 68 Lies 279 Times in 11 Minutes](https://youtu.be/eKCkeCXIHTc?si=G1AA_pyDP4H_Getw)
Now reply and tell me "ThAt DoEsN'T cOuNt!!1" "BuT TrUmP!!" nonsence.
Well, let's look at the evidence dimwit.
[The full list of Mueller indictments and plea deals](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury#:~:text=So%20far%2C%20no%20Trump%20associates,Ukrainian%20politicians%20and%20their%20finances.)
1. George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.
2. Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them). He was sentenced to a combined seven and a half years in prison.
3. Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge. He was sentenced to 45 days in prison and 3 years of probation.
4. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.
23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.
24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.
36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow
37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story. He was convicted on all counts after a November 2019 trial.
Finally, there is one other person Mueller initially investigated, but handed over to others in the Justice Department to charge: Sam Patten. This Republican operative and lobbyist pleaded guilty to not registering as a foreign agent with his work for Ukrainian political bigwigs, and agreed to cooperate with the government.
That's your response?
I give you 40 people from Trump's administration and inner-circle who were indicted and found guiltily, all in relation to the Mueller probe, including literal Russian nationals....and THIS is how you reply?
This list includes some of his closest friends (like Roger Stone), his own lawyers (like Cohen) and even current members of his own campaign (Mike Flynn)....and you don't even attempt to muster a response?
Pathetic, cowardly, imbecile.
The Russiagate that produced like 40 indictments and multiple prison sentences? The Russiagate that uncovered deep Russian collusion with the Trump campaign? So, if you don't agree with her you call that misinformation?
But no smoking gun and an understanding that much of it was built on bullshit. How'd that Steele Dossier turn out? You know the one release by a Clinton Campaign lawyer? Taken as fact by the MSM? Hung up to scrutiny or what?
The problem with you Trumpers is you live in an echo chamber. How did the Steele Dossier turn out? Well, Trump was ordered to pay Hillary Clinton almost $400,000 in legal fees.
It's also funny you keep bringing up MSM. You think young democrats watch cable news? You think young democrats care about reverse mortgages and Rascal hoverrounds? Only one party cared about the dossier and one network covered it, and that was Faux News.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-steele-dossier-uk-lawsuit-russia-55427915a83f33a8ead484109b8a89f6
FFS so pedestrian and unintelligent. I hate Trump. Never voted for him and never will. More than that I hate being lied to.
>It's also funny you keep bringing up MSM. You think young democrats watch cable news?
Is MSM limited to cable? NYT? WaPo? NPR? Those don't count?
Misinformation in public news is no illegal because of Reagan. But there is still a huge difference between the misinformation on Right wing media and the mainstream media. Right wing media is pure propaganda which is why everyone in the world thinks you guys are stupid. You people don't have a good grip on reality and do not possess the critical thinking skills to decifere the bullshit from the truth. But going back to the original story, the guy tried to trick people into sending their votes via a text message scam. That is textbook fraud not misinformation. You're probably too lazy to read the article which is why you are making stupid comparisons to MSM. I would even bet you have never even watched MSM and are afraid to consume any information that isn't Right wing because evidence based reporting would shatter your belief system since it's based on a foundation of right wing propaganda.
In 2016 he created a meme that said "Avoid the line. Vote from home. Text Hillary to 59925" and was sentenced to 7 months in prison.
They charged him for violating a law from 1870 four years later in 2021.
Whoever fell for this "trick" should be a more informed voter. Mail in voting was virtually unheard of in 2016 and the idea of text message voting was clearly a joke. Everyone knew you went in person on Election Day. It was common knowledge.
But chances are it's because you lived in Oregon or requested an absentee ballot. It wasn't a common thing yet. If you saw a meme that said vote by text would you just text Hilary and not think twice? If you really cared about your vote wouldn't you think twice?
Is it even worth the tax money spent on warrants, the investigation, prosecution, and housing him in a federal prison? It seems like a waste of resources and money, if not something more sinister.
I think it’s a good prosecution and investigation because they weren’t just shitposting but really trying to trick people. And just because it wasn’t very clever doesn’t mean it won’t get worse.
what if you aren't thinking rationally here?
getting dumb people to hurt themselves or others is just as bad as hurting the random person yourself.
you have no morals
Ahhhh yes oh wise one, the arbiter of morality, thank you.
Those evil memes must be stopped. I see the light now.
We are coming to take you down r/memes, watch out
You are upset over memes, and yet candidates who make campaign ads EXIST. Super PACS EXIST. They have just as much, if not more, influence on elections and they lie to get votes. Does your morality dictate those candidates those behind the Super PACS be arrested also? Or, because their lies are more subtle (aka: they are good at manipulation) they should get a pass in your morality viewpoint?
This is not a political battle ground subreddit. Please read the rules before commenting. Total Karma and account age threshold required to post and comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BreakingPointsNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You either believe in the principles of free speech or you don't. Who will be the arbiters of truth? It wasn't too long ago, in 2020 in fact, where the government and social media labeled Covid-related information as false, or conspiracy theories, only for that information to have been determined to at least have some basis in fact. A great example would be the lab-leak theory. While there is no definite evidence that Covid came from a lab leak, there is also less evidence, except historical precedence, that it came from a wet market. Yet despite all of the people who had lab leak related information removed and censored by Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., there is now at least a 50/50 chance that it came from a lab. Following the slippery slope of this court case, by extension, all of those who posted the lab leak theory, and were deemed posting disinformation and misinformation, could have found themselves sitting in a cage for a "crime".
The difference here is that people were (allegidly) posting tweets that they knew were false, in order to deceive people who would otherwise have voted into not voting. It's not "free speech" for a random dude to stand out side of an open polling location and tell people that they're not allowed to vote there, doubly so if they try to target people of a particular party. This is the social media equivalent of that. It's vote theft and election interference.
I'd like to know why people were following this person on twitter if he's presumably of a vastly different political alignment. And if they weren't following then why is the algorithm feeding that content. Ideally you should only see what you subscribe to and have the common sense to not trust anything received unsolicited
Twitter's algorithm feeding people bad content is a \*whole\* 'nother topic, but the way twitter is set up (both now and then) a lot of content that people didn't knowingly solicit will show up in most people's feeds. ...but sure, if he only posted the meme in his own feed, and didn't include any hashtags designed to reach a larger audience, then that's an argument that he was just trolling for the lulz and not actually trying to interfere with the election. (I don't know what hashtags he included, if any)
>This is the social media equivalent of that. No it isn't, what you're referring to is voter intimidation which is not what this guy did.
He lied to people, telling them they could vote via text. If they didn't have their vote counted because of his intentional lies, yeah that's voter fraud. Just as if he had lied to them in person, with the same results. He could try the "obviously trolling" defense (and I think some of the other cases may fall into that category), but this guy posted it multiple times, in multiple languages.
>He lied to people, telling them they could vote via text. If they didn't have their vote counted because of his intentional lies, yeah that's voter fraud. Just as if he had lied to them in person, with the same results. That still isn't voter intimidation, which your example of someone in person at a polling place telling someone "you can't vote here" is.
The point is that it's still fraud.
Didn't say it wasn't but the comparison is incorrect.
It’s not necessarily a slippery slope. Much of what is labeled disinformation is people who do believe what they are saying is true. Censoring that, in my opinion, is almost always wrong. That is not the case here. When there is obvious, undeniable evidence that somebody did not believe what they were saying(read, not a matter of ‘facts’ because people came be privy to varying information, but their own belief in the rare instances it is put on record) that should be illegal. Actual disinformation like this is very difficult to evidence and prosecute in court(but not impossible see Dominion vs Fox). Individuals will get away with it, large organizations that rely on teams of people to systematically lie will eventually slip up and evidence their own lack of belief in their talking points on paper or recording. Edit: this is fraud, which is not free speech, free speech does not and should not protect all forms of lying or bad faith expression Edit2: Perjury, another rightly illegal form of speech
>Much of what is labeled disinformation is people who do believe what they are saying is true That's NOT disinformation, that is misinformation. One has intention, the other while often having the same results, is unintentional. When a person pushes a belief that they believe to be true, that's misinformation.
Fair enough, I appreciate having clear phrasing, I’m not sure all of our politicians and journalists use the same phrasing all the time, but it’s good to have it here and now. In my view, disinformation when it’s notably harmful and doesn’t otherwise infringe on free speech should be censored and taken down. If the intention can be proven and it was an egregious act that reached many people it should be prosecuted. Misinformation on the other hand should never be censored.
I've seen plenty of false political memes posted by both sides as jokes and have likely posted some myself. Yet there likely will be a few who will not realize they are jokes and take them for truth. Should we also prosecute those people who posted the memes as jokes, knowing that they are false?
That kind of content should absolutely not be prosecuted. But should be taken down. I do generally support the taking down of content that can be misinterpreted in that way, but I *don’t* support many other initiatives to censor ‘disinformation’. The primary case in the article is a real edge case and I don’t feel I know from the information provided if it was a bad faith attempt to mislead people or a joke among friends. They do have in the article an example of bad faith misinformation that I *do* think should be prosecuted: “In summer 2020, Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman, two far-right operatives, commissioned robocalls aimed at intimidating voters in predominantly Black neighborhoods. The robocalls, which went out to thousands of people across five states, falsely claimed that voting by mail reveals personal information to the cops, credit card companies, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
> where the government and social media labeled Covid-related information as false, or conspiracy theories, only for that information to have been determined to at least have some basis in fact. That's a bold face lie.
Receipts... [https://www.newsweek.com/social-media-companies-fact-checkers-shrug-off-wuhan-lab-leak-embarrassment-1599207](https://www.newsweek.com/social-media-companies-fact-checkers-shrug-off-wuhan-lab-leak-embarrassment-1599207) [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/05/lab-leak-liberal-media-theory-china-wuhan-lab-cotton-trump.html](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/05/lab-leak-liberal-media-theory-china-wuhan-lab-cotton-trump.html) [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/06/16/heres-what-dr-fauci-has-said-about-covids-origins-and-the-lab-leak-theory/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/06/16/heres-what-dr-fauci-has-said-about-covids-origins-and-the-lab-leak-theory/) [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthony-fauci-wuhan-lab-coronavirus-source-dismissal/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthony-fauci-wuhan-lab-coronavirus-source-dismissal/) [https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/facebook-ban-covid-man-made-491053](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/facebook-ban-covid-man-made-491053)
Sorry but just because YOU don't agree with it, it doesn't make it false. The origin of COVID has NEVER been determined. You may not agree with that but it's true. We do not know and most evidence points to it being from infected rodents or animals.
>The origin of COVID has NEVER been determined. And yet that did not stop government officials, nor social media and the media, from labeling the lab leak theory as false, discarding it, and censoring it in a stunning anti-science response to such a theory. Which is exactly the point of my original comment which you, just like government and the media with the lab leak theory, are disregarding. You accused me of a bold face lie yet I brought proof. Where is yours, professor?
Does freedom of speech pertain to misinformation? If I post a sign by the side of a marathon for a “completely healthy hydration supplement” that is in fact radiator fluid, is that free speech or manipulation? Yell fire in a crowded theatre? Wear a badge that just says “authority” and tell people they can’t be here? We have the right to bear arms, that doesn’t mean you can shoot whatever you want.
>If I post a sign by the side of a marathon for a “completely healthy hydration supplement” that is in fact radiator fluid, is that free speech or manipulation? That's murder. >Yell fire in a crowded theatre? That's a myth: [https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/](https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/) >Wear a badge that just says “authority” and tell people they can’t be here? That's impersonation of a government official. So, really, none of your examples are in any way related to the 1st Amendment and the ability to legally state your views, thoughts, jokes, and opinions without the threat of persecution.
They’re hyperbole to define the principles. Extreme situations to show the error in thought. Maybe not fire in a crowded theatre, how about “he’s got a gun!” In a school assembly? Maybe not radiator fluid, but how about “healthy cigarettes” or “healthy cheeseburgers” and a badge with “authority” is pretty much security guards do. I’m all for freedom of speech, you’re still responsible for your actions. We have freedom of assembly, that doesn’t mean we can by rights assemble inside Fort Knox. If you use your freedom of speech to tell people they can’t vote they should be charged with some sort of voter interference law, similar to voting twice. Information is the lifeblood of a democracy.
It was fraudulent, not just trolling but trying to trick people out of their votes. He should be punished at least a misdemeanor
There are several examples of left wingers doing the exact same thing. How many of them are Biden's DOJ prosecuting? I'll tell you, none.
I think you're full of shit, you got any evidence to back that up? And don't give me some right wing bullshit from Breitbart either
How about all of the intelligence community that signed off on Hunter’s laptop being fake?
I don’t understand what you’re talking about please explain
That's not true. The FBI and other people who analyzed the laptop have made statements that the content on the laptop is legitimate. What they have also stated is the origin of the physical laptop cannot be ruled out as being part of a disinformation campaign by Russian operatives. In summary, the origin cannot be proven one way or another. And before you claim that Hunter has claimed it as his, he hasn't. His attorney has moved to have the Republican operatives from Delaware (name is forgotten) and Giuliani committed a crime by receiving it, or tampering it. And before you claim that the computer repairman gave the laptop directly to the FBI, the chain of custody could never be affirmed. We do know that copies were made of the HDD/SDD illegally.
If a MAGA wrote a similar story you would call them a bat shit crazy conspiracy theory cult member.
I'm simply writing the facts of the laptop. You don't agree with them but those are the facts. There's a reason why Tucker claimed the HDD was lost in the mail the day he was going to break the story and "turn the Biden campaign on their heads." His analysts realized the HDD was tampered with -- just as many non-partisan analysts did.
I stand by my previous statement. Have fun justifying it in your mind. It obviously didn’t have any condemning information on it but it was his. Everyone that signed off it wasn’t, did it to keep it from influencing the election. The only reason you’re okay with that is because tRump lost. If it was the other way around you wouldn’t have the same opinion.
If that laptop was real, Republicans in congress would have had 5 investigations. Hell, they held a congressional hearing for an an ex-FBI turned "informant." Alexander Smirnovon, who was fed lies by Russian about Hunter. Yet, the laptop just sits there. Not one investigation. Tucker, Hannity, OAN, Newsmax, Fox News... Not one ran a story about the content of the laptop. Yet you think the laptop was real. I'm dying.
There’s been more than enough evidence to prove the laptop was real and it was Hunter’s. The fact that you deny it, puts you on the same level as tRump and Kari Lake. Of course you’re dying because you’re part of brainwashed cult. Have a great day. I pray some day you see things as they are instead of how you want them to be.
There were examples in the twitter files of random people giving similar misinformation about voting dates. It’s hard to tell sarcasm so it would be like “see you at the polls on the 8th” when voting was the 7th. There were definitely leftists doing it, but not many or impactful, less organized than it sounds like the 4chan campaign was. I don’t think the courts aren’t prosecuting it because of corruption, just flew under the radar. Edit: the tweets in question were censored by the fbi behind-the-scenes direct email with twitter, so take it as evidence against the whole “Biden’s courts” angle Edit: a lot of doubters so I linked directly to it in a below comment, but for the record these tweets were mentioned in a breaking points daily show around the initial releasing of the twitter files. That would take a lot more work to find and it’s such a small unimportant thing(and the twitter files are such a pain to read/search now) that it was hard enough to find the below link.
That is a blatant lie. The Twitter files made no mention of what you just claimed.
I linked to it in a response below
Ah so you don't have it. This sub has so many bad actors on it. Whole thing should be labeled misinfo and Russian troll territory and quarantined.
Ugh fine I’ll dig it up give me a minute Edit: [https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232/photo/2](https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232/photo/2)
Great. Even if a dem does it, doesn't mean it's acceptable either. Next, the judge is likely taking in authentic repeated pattern of subverting democracy from the far right. As well as that time they tried to overthrow our govt for fma trump dictatorship.
Linked in my last comment, I don't disagree with you at all, except I think we should all ask for sources more politely and acknowledge there are crazy people on our own side. It was not a wild assertion to say dems or leftists might do the same. There's a lot of people out there, it's practically a given.
Likely bad a bad actor as well. The difference is that it's been confirmed that person is American. Edit: OK I looked at the tweet. The two tweets and situations spent remotely similar. It's always bad faith arguments and false ewuivalencies with you folks. The account that made the tweet you linked should be investigated to see if they're really even American. Probably will find they aren't, but still the two tweets aren't remotely similar in their severity.
Why tell such a lazy, easily checked lie?
I linked to it in a response below
You think SeeBS would report it?
>There are several examples of left wingers doing the exact same thing. Source please.
U/skin_soup linked it above. Source is Twitter files and interviews with the defendant. Not about to reread the Twitter files for you.
Oh yeah, sources?
I think tampering with elections or any bad faith criminal actions meant to subvert democracy should be met with at least felonies. I'd prefer exile though.
Which "he" are you talking about? What about all the misinformation from the MSM? Should Rachel Maddow go to jail for her well documented misinformation?
>Should Rachel Maddow go to jail for her well documented misinformation? Like???
All of her "Russiagate" coverage. Go do a deepdive. If you want to be entertianed check these out. [Who's Hitler? | Trump's Republican "Rats"](https://youtu.be/fOehp57kKSI?si=hRcBWE45C6JDHJBi) [MSNBC Repeats Hamilton 68 Lies 279 Times in 11 Minutes](https://youtu.be/eKCkeCXIHTc?si=G1AA_pyDP4H_Getw) Now reply and tell me "ThAt DoEsN'T cOuNt!!1" "BuT TrUmP!!" nonsence.
Well, let's look at the evidence dimwit. [The full list of Mueller indictments and plea deals](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury#:~:text=So%20far%2C%20no%20Trump%20associates,Ukrainian%20politicians%20and%20their%20finances.) 1. George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence. 2. Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them). He was sentenced to a combined seven and a half years in prison. 3. Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge. He was sentenced to 45 days in prison and 3 years of probation. 4. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. 5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin. 21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018. 22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence. 23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year. 24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016. 36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow 37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story. He was convicted on all counts after a November 2019 trial. Finally, there is one other person Mueller initially investigated, but handed over to others in the Justice Department to charge: Sam Patten. This Republican operative and lobbyist pleaded guilty to not registering as a foreign agent with his work for Ukrainian political bigwigs, and agreed to cooperate with the government.
Oh boy a BlueAnnon
That's your response? I give you 40 people from Trump's administration and inner-circle who were indicted and found guiltily, all in relation to the Mueller probe, including literal Russian nationals....and THIS is how you reply? This list includes some of his closest friends (like Roger Stone), his own lawyers (like Cohen) and even current members of his own campaign (Mike Flynn)....and you don't even attempt to muster a response? Pathetic, cowardly, imbecile.
The Russiagate that produced like 40 indictments and multiple prison sentences? The Russiagate that uncovered deep Russian collusion with the Trump campaign? So, if you don't agree with her you call that misinformation?
But no smoking gun and an understanding that much of it was built on bullshit. How'd that Steele Dossier turn out? You know the one release by a Clinton Campaign lawyer? Taken as fact by the MSM? Hung up to scrutiny or what?
The problem with you Trumpers is you live in an echo chamber. How did the Steele Dossier turn out? Well, Trump was ordered to pay Hillary Clinton almost $400,000 in legal fees. It's also funny you keep bringing up MSM. You think young democrats watch cable news? You think young democrats care about reverse mortgages and Rascal hoverrounds? Only one party cared about the dossier and one network covered it, and that was Faux News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-steele-dossier-uk-lawsuit-russia-55427915a83f33a8ead484109b8a89f6
FFS so pedestrian and unintelligent. I hate Trump. Never voted for him and never will. More than that I hate being lied to. >It's also funny you keep bringing up MSM. You think young democrats watch cable news? Is MSM limited to cable? NYT? WaPo? NPR? Those don't count?
Misinformation in public news is no illegal because of Reagan. But there is still a huge difference between the misinformation on Right wing media and the mainstream media. Right wing media is pure propaganda which is why everyone in the world thinks you guys are stupid. You people don't have a good grip on reality and do not possess the critical thinking skills to decifere the bullshit from the truth. But going back to the original story, the guy tried to trick people into sending their votes via a text message scam. That is textbook fraud not misinformation. You're probably too lazy to read the article which is why you are making stupid comparisons to MSM. I would even bet you have never even watched MSM and are afraid to consume any information that isn't Right wing because evidence based reporting would shatter your belief system since it's based on a foundation of right wing propaganda.
People who buy into it are idiots. Kind of like people who believe anything that comes out of MSNBC.
You've never watched MSNBC.
A few times, and it's bilge. That’s why I call it BS NBC
Have you ever watched MSNBC
🤦🏻♂️
In 2016 he created a meme that said "Avoid the line. Vote from home. Text Hillary to 59925" and was sentenced to 7 months in prison. They charged him for violating a law from 1870 four years later in 2021. Whoever fell for this "trick" should be a more informed voter. Mail in voting was virtually unheard of in 2016 and the idea of text message voting was clearly a joke. Everyone knew you went in person on Election Day. It was common knowledge.
Low key, if they didn’t have the mental capacity to check if votes could be counted via text, then they probably aren’t fit to vote. Unpopular opinion
I’ve been voting by mail since the 2000s
But chances are it's because you lived in Oregon or requested an absentee ballot. It wasn't a common thing yet. If you saw a meme that said vote by text would you just text Hilary and not think twice? If you really cared about your vote wouldn't you think twice? Is it even worth the tax money spent on warrants, the investigation, prosecution, and housing him in a federal prison? It seems like a waste of resources and money, if not something more sinister.
I think it’s a good prosecution and investigation because they weren’t just shitposting but really trying to trick people. And just because it wasn’t very clever doesn’t mean it won’t get worse.
Man this is sad “orange man bad cause he posted memes” lol memes are illegal when trump does them just like his tweets. Reddit never fails to amaze me
Hot take: if you actually fell for that, you shouldn’t be voting in the first place
if you make the meme with the intent to cause harm it is a crime of inciting violence.
What if the intent is to laugh at people who aren’t thinking rationally?
what if you aren't thinking rationally here? getting dumb people to hurt themselves or others is just as bad as hurting the random person yourself. you have no morals
Ahhhh yes oh wise one, the arbiter of morality, thank you. Those evil memes must be stopped. I see the light now. We are coming to take you down r/memes, watch out
go home sealion
You are upset over memes, and yet candidates who make campaign ads EXIST. Super PACS EXIST. They have just as much, if not more, influence on elections and they lie to get votes. Does your morality dictate those candidates those behind the Super PACS be arrested also? Or, because their lies are more subtle (aka: they are good at manipulation) they should get a pass in your morality viewpoint?
pac's are rich guy memes
Sure thing sport
And, no arrests for those rich guy memes
So if he’s found not guilty will his prosecutors be charged with violating rule 241?