06-21-2024, 11:54 AM
(06-21-2024, 11:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, there's several issues with that:
1) Is it the government's job to be the arbiter of truth? I suspect the people that wrote the 1st Amendment would disagree. It's more than a slippery slope when the government suppresses free speech "to protect the public".
2) Good information is out there if people care to search for it. Perhaps the real problem with disinformation is the "4th Estate" has completely lost trust and credibility.
3) Whether Jimbob yells on the corner or posts a tweet, the loudness/reach of free speech has never been a criteria, to my knowledge, to infringe on free speech. Agree or disagree, one of the reasons Musk cites for buying Twitter is he feels it's very much an extension of free speech in the modern world, and shouldn't be a platform for state run media.
This sounds a lot like the old "nanny state" arguments. How we went from that old meme "I read it on the internet, it must be true" to moderating OPINIONS that may differ from the view held by the government - which has access to all kind of media, including direct communication to the people is beyond me.
Can't say I remember people demanding US Weekly and The Enquirer be moderated for misinformation. And they were right there front and center at the grocery checkout line. Yet somehow most people knew most of those stories were sensationalized garbage. But no doubt those rags had many avid readers that believed much of the stories.
Stupid people are always going to stupid. The rest of us don't need the government to protect us from their ignorant beliefs.
The same people who want to limit what you can see or read are the same people who want no limits on what our children can.
I wonder if there is a word for that?
