Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-12-2022, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's sincerely interesting that someone as educated as you can fail to add one to one and get two.  Your first sentence does explain your position in this thread.  You apparently have no problem with the "ministry of truth" because you agree with their mission.  

And again you actually understand the point being made when others do not.  Aside from the fact that "harassment" is subjective it is most certainly not an offense on the level of denying someone their democratic or human rights.  Anyone who could label it as such has no business being in the business of deciding what the nation is told is true or false.  As for making online harassment illegal, we'll that whole first amendment thing kind of gets in the way.  Of course not for the EU, which has no such thing, but here in the US, where this odious woman will actually be working for the government, her position is as untenable as it is hyperbolic.

The question then becomes why would she label such behavior in such an extreme, and inappropriate fashion?  Because if you label something as innocuous as calling someone a "dumb *****" and assault on their democratic and human rights you lay the groundwork for making such conduct illegal.  This woman is as transparent as she is partisan.

"Ministry of Truth"? "Deciding what the nation is told is true or false"?  

But "hyperbole" is among her faults? 

If people want a productive discussion about what constitutes "harassment" and whether it can possibly deny human rights,
they would do well to begin with the issue of harassment in the workplace.  There, at least, one could find examples and procedures
for defining that "subjective" term, as we do for many others--though admittedly at the expense of the harasser's right to free speech.

Another good question, more related to the thread topic, is whether or how a definition of online harassment might fall under the purview of a DHS department focused on the security threat of cyber disinformation. Does one person just get to "decide" stuff in that department, or are decisions a matter of research, board work, and consensus subject to review of other bodies (e.g., the DOJ, CIA, FBI)? 

That might move us away from distortions and misdirections inherent in the "Ministry of Truth" label. Assuming we really want to move away from the distortions.