The Political Discussion Thread

[Coco Pops]

Whoopsie!!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-3...gation/9295180

That's a little bigger then a whoopsie?


From Trumps own twitter

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...80713236934657

and

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...81212468203520

[LtColCarter]

Whoopsie!!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-3...gation/9295180

As they say in Teen Wolf..."There are three things than cannot long remain hidden: The Sun, The Moon, and The Truth." It will come out.

[aretood2]

Trump is trying to channel Bush and Obama in one...except he lacks the moral high ground they had.

[jelgate]

Trump is trying to channel Bush and Obama in one...except he lacks the moral high ground they had.

Not to mention the temperament or intelligence

[thekillman]

From Trumps own twitter

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...80713236934657

and

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...81212468203520

He really does think he's part of the mafia, isn't he?

[Annoyed]

Free Speech, anyone?

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/12/...extremism.html

Tech giants like Google and Facebook, already under fire for not doing enough to combat extremism and fake news, could face new taxes in the United Kingdom if a government official has his way.

Britain may impose new taxes on tech companies unless they do more to fight online extremism by removing material that radicalizes people or helps them to prepare attacks, Conservative Party security minister Ben Wallace said.

Wallace claimed tech firms were happy to sell people’s data but not to give it to the government, which is spending vast sums on de-radicalization programs, surveillance and other counter-terrorism measures.

“If they continue to be less than cooperative, we should look at things like tax as a way of incentivizing them or compen*sating for their inaction,” Wallace told the Sunday Times newspaper in an interview.

Never mind the ramifications towards free speech as proposed, how long before this means "posts that the government doesn't agree with" ?

[aretood2]

Free Speech, anyone?

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/12/...extremism.html



Never mind the ramifications towards free speech as proposed, how long before this means "posts that the government doesn't agree with" ?

The irony here is that the president, and the GOP consider any news that is negative to be "fake". But then...what does "fake news" mean? You tell me. What makes news "fake"?

[jelgate]

Free speech should not be of concern for people who are planning terrorist attacks. You give up that right when you plan to kill and harm people

[Gatefan1976]

Free Speech, anyone?

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/12/...extremism.html



Never mind the ramifications towards free speech as proposed, how long before this means "posts that the government doesn't agree with" ?

The irony here is that the president, and the GOP consider any news that is negative to be "fake". But then...what does "fake news" mean? You tell me. What makes news "fake"?

I would have thought that the irony is, UK laws on free speech are not the same as US laws.

[Annoyed]

The irony here is that the president, and the GOP consider any news that is negative to be "fake". But then...what does "fake news" mean? You tell me. What makes news "fake"?

That's the big question, isn't it? Everybody has their own definition. Very often the claim is that something which does not agree with the viewpoint of or otherwise is against his interests is fake. You can't point to some reference point and compare to it.

So as I usually say when it comes to speech issues, let everyone have their say and let the audience decide the value of what is being said.

[Annoyed]

I would have thought that the irony is, UK laws on free speech are not the same as US laws.

I am aware that that article refers to the UK. I hope their population doesn't swallow this nonsense.

I don't care where it is, the govt. should not be allowed to levy penalties for published/broadcast content aside from the customary prohibitions regarding obscenity. The govt. should not control speech.

[Gatefan1976]

I am aware that that article refers to the UK. I hope their population doesn't swallow this nonsense.

I don't care where it is, the govt. should not be allowed to levy penalties for published/broadcast content aside from the customary prohibitions regarding obscenity. The govt. should not control speech.

Given the content they are targeting, don't you think it fits under obscene?

[Annoyed]

Given the content they are targeting, don't you think it fits under obscene?

Given the content he's talking about at this time, ok, fine. But what about 5 years down the road? Give 'em an inch and they'll want a mile.

[jelgate]

So we are back to paranoia. I'll get the tin foil hats

[Gatefan1976]

Given the content he's talking about at this time, ok, fine. But what about 5 years down the road? Give 'em an inch and they'll want a mile.

Given that since it's inception free speech has always come with conditions or exceptions, and no one has taken a mile in all that time, do you think your paranoia is warranted?