Trump's 46 minutes....To Censor or not to Censor?...

[Scott Mayers]

I avoided most direct discussions on this guy other than when I tried hard to get people to vote for Hillary before he got in power. But this particular speech of his (unseen except in news clips) made me wonder about the issue of "free speech limitations". I'm a strong advocate of free speech but believe that it should come with the caveate of consequences when or where one uses it to intentionally decieve or harm others (with clear concern).

This is one case where I happen to agree that he needed to be censored. It isn't that he was completely censored given the CNN and other reports DID assert where one can find it. If you have Facebook, you can find it. I don't and only checked to see where else it might be published, like YouTube.

I DO think that it should be archived and presented eventually AFTER he is clearly out of office.

What do others think about this in light of free speech? Given many feel that it is alright to use rhetoric and expression that intentionally lie, like advertising misdirection etc, what is the fair limits to censor? How can it be done that doesn't lead to other forms of abuses given SOMEONE has to be relatively privileged to decide...(ie, the censors)?

Here's a link to the topic as discussed by New York Times...https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/us/p ... video.html

[henry quirk]

did my lil ORANGE hand-grenade slander anyone?

if indeed he did slander a flesh & blood person, and that person suffered quantifiable loss cuz of that slander, then that person can seek remedy in the court

did my plump ORANGE howitzer indulge in fightin' words?

if indeed he inflamed and incited, and if any subsequent violence can be proven to extend out of his fightin' words, then those inclined can seek remedy in the courts

see how it works? the remedy comes after, not before

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I avoided most direct discussions on this guy other than when I tried hard to get people to vote for Hillary before he got in power. But this particular speech of his (unseen except in news clips) made me wonder about the issue of "free speech limitations". I'm a strong advocate of free speech but believe that it should come with the caveate of consequences when or where one uses it to intentionally decieve or harm others (with clear concern).

This is one case where I happen to agree that he needed to be censored. It isn't that he was completely censored given the CNN and other reports DID assert where one can find it. If you have Facebook, you can find it. I don't and only checked to see where else it might be published, like YouTube.

I DO think that it should be archived and presented eventually AFTER he is clearly out of office.

What do others think about this in light of free speech? Given many feel that it is alright to use rhetoric and expression that intentionally lie, like advertising misdirection etc, what is the fair limits to censor? How can it be done that doesn't lead to other forms of abuses given SOMEONE has to be relatively privileged to decide...(ie, the censors)?

Here's a link to the topic as discussed by New York Times...https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/us/p ... video.html

So you preferred mass murderer Hillary? How very woke of you.

[Scott Mayers]

did my lil ORANGE hand-grenade slander anyone?

if indeed he did slander a flesh & blood person, and that person suffered quantifiable loss cuz of that slander, then that person can seek remedy in the court

did my plump ORANGE howitzer indulge in fightin' words?

if indeed he inflamed and incited, and if any subsequent violence can be proven to extend out of his fightin' words, then those inclined can seek remedy in the courts

see how it works? the remedy comes after, not before

But power can override some people's ability to compete to billionaires who tend to sue themselves and in ways that force others to ALSO have sufficient money UP FRONT to sue or simply lose by default. It is sort of like how one playing in some gambling card games (like poker) can bid up and prevent those without the money to play. [Maybe I'm missing something on the rules of the game but this is the impression I get. I believe it is 'upping the ante' maybe?]

[Scott Mayers]

I avoided most direct discussions on this guy other than when I tried hard to get people to vote for Hillary before he got in power. But this particular speech of his (unseen except in news clips) made me wonder about the issue of "free speech limitations". I'm a strong advocate of free speech but believe that it should come with the caveate of consequences when or where one uses it to intentionally decieve or harm others (with clear concern).

This is one case where I happen to agree that he needed to be censored. It isn't that he was completely censored given the CNN and other reports DID assert where one can find it. If you have Facebook, you can find it. I don't and only checked to see where else it might be published, like YouTube.

I DO think that it should be archived and presented eventually AFTER he is clearly out of office.

What do others think about this in light of free speech? Given many feel that it is alright to use rhetoric and expression that intentionally lie, like advertising misdirection etc, what is the fair limits to censor? How can it be done that doesn't lead to other forms of abuses given SOMEONE has to be relatively privileged to decide...(ie, the censors)?

Here's a link to the topic as discussed by New York Times...https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/us/p ... video.html

So you preferred mass murderer Hillary? How very woke of you.

Hmmm? You're joking, right?

[henry quirk]

did my lil ORANGE hand-grenade slander anyone?

if indeed he did slander a flesh & blood person, and that person suffered quantifiable loss cuz of that slander, then that person can seek remedy in the court

did my plump ORANGE howitzer indulge in fightin' words?

if indeed he inflamed and incited, and if any subsequent violence can be proven to extend out of his fightin' words, then those inclined can seek remedy in the courts

see how it works? the remedy comes after, not before

But power can override some people's ability to compete to billionaires who tend to sue themselves and in ways that force others to ALSO have sufficient money UP FRONT to sue or simply lose by default. It is sort of like how one playing in some gambling card games (like poker) can bid up and prevent those without the money to play. [Maybe I'm missing something on the rules of the game but this is the impression I get. I believe it is 'upping the ante' maybe?]

so: the wealthy or powerful ought to muzzled becuz they're wealthy or powerful, yeah?

[Scott Mayers]

did my lil ORANGE hand-grenade slander anyone?

if indeed he did slander a flesh & blood person, and that person suffered quantifiable loss cuz of that slander, then that person can seek remedy in the court

did my plump ORANGE howitzer indulge in fightin' words?

if indeed he inflamed and incited, and if any subsequent violence can be proven to extend out of his fightin' words, then those inclined can seek remedy in the courts

see how it works? the remedy comes after, not before

But power can override some people's ability to compete to billionaires who tend to sue themselves and in ways that force others to ALSO have sufficient money UP FRONT to sue or simply lose by default. It is sort of like how one playing in some gambling card games (like poker) can bid up and prevent those without the money to play. [Maybe I'm missing something on the rules of the game but this is the impression I get. I believe it is 'upping the ante' maybe?]

so: the wealthy or powerful ought to muzzled becuz they're wealthy or powerful, yeah?

I'm looking for something a bit deeper philosophically than I believe you contribute to. The question is to whether there is a point at which censorship SHOULD occur in light of my own disapproval of it normally. The particular video is available and YOU can choose to see it. But my question is to whether given something you can imagine one can say can be so affective in a way that misleads others to harm?

If Trump is something you don't like to discuss for favoring him, do you believe any limits at all should exist to prevent clear and obvious lying in the context of expecting something serious by anyone?

[henry quirk]

The question is to whether there is a point at which censorship SHOULD occur in light of my own disapproval of it normally.

I don't think there's any before-hand justification for such a thing


my question is to whether given something you can imagine one can say can be so affective in a way that misleads others to harm?

oh, fightin' words can incite, can lead to harm...don't know how you can censor such words in advance of the harm


If Trump is something you don't like to discuss for favoring him,

I like ORANGE MAN, but I'm a big boy...discuss him as you like


do you believe any limits at all should exist to prevent clear and obvious lying in the context of expecting something serious by anyone?

nope

[Impenitent]

communist utopia will work this time- that is the only truth

censor away

-Imp

p.s. vaccine and cure?!? enjoy your masks... https://news.yahoo.com/biden-plans-ask- ... 17348.html

utopia

[Lacewing]

The question is to whether there is a point at which censorship SHOULD occur in light of my own disapproval of it normally.

...whether given something you can imagine one can say can be so affective in a way that misleads others to harm?

I do not like censorship either. But I DO think there are times that it is OBVIOUSLY better to apply censorship and control than not to.

Why would we be willing to hand a microphone and broad media coverage over to an obvious liar who incites rage and violence? How is that necessary or constructive?

Why is protecting/promoting THAT person's freedom more important than protecting other people's well-being?

A position of "no censorship" is an extremist position, just as total censorship would be.

[Walker]

If anyone other than Congress censors the President's voice, it's a mob action.

Any broadcast media that was supposed to broadcast his message, and didn't, should have their valuable license to broadcast, yanked.

It doesn't matter who the president is.

It doesn't even matter if he is senile and babbling.

Who's the censor, btw? A freak with a Gandalf beard? Nobody voted for him. He doesn't represent the people.

[Scott Mayers]

The question is to whether there is a point at which censorship SHOULD occur in light of my own disapproval of it normally.

I don't think there's any before-hand justification for such a thing


my question is to whether given something you can imagine one can say can be so affective in a way that misleads others to harm?

oh, fightin' words can incite, can lead to harm...don't know how you can censor such words in advance of the harm


If Trump is something you don't like to discuss for favoring him,

I like ORANGE MAN, but I'm a big boy...discuss him as you like


do you believe any limits at all should exist to prevent clear and obvious lying in the context of expecting something serious by anyone?

nope

...Thanks. I got what I needed to know!

[Scott Mayers]

communist utopia will work this time- that is the only truth

censor away

-Imp

p.s. vaccine and cure?!? enjoy your masks... https://news.yahoo.com/biden-plans-ask- ... 17348.html

utopia

Maybe that's what those intentionally putting out farsical shocking rhetoric that is so obviously false is meant to do!? Knowing the stupidest of the stupidest would trust them as leaders may be a plot to raise a war that would inevitably force the society to embrace Communism! [Damn, Trump, why didn't you tell us commies you were on our side? ]

[Scott Mayers]

The question is to whether there is a point at which censorship SHOULD occur in light of my own disapproval of it normally.

...whether given something you can imagine one can say can be so affective in a way that misleads others to harm?

I do not like censorship either. But I DO think there are times that it is OBVIOUSLY better to apply censorship and control than not to.

Why would we be willing to hand a microphone and broad media coverage over to an obvious liar who incites rage and violence? How is that necessary or constructive?

Why is protecting/promoting THAT person's freedom more important than protecting other people's well-being?

A position of "no censorship" is an extremist position, just as total censorship would be.

I gave Trump the benefit of the doubt about 'what is in his heart' regarding things like racism given it appeared to be atypical of the rhetoric of the extreme business man embracing the Machiavellian tactics. I certainly disagreed with it but thought it was sufficiently obvious that no one would literally believe.

Yet here we are at a crossroad in history again where those who trusted just the tiniest bit in some sense of universal compassion by smarter people ended up getting bit hard back. I didn't approve of censorship with a similar trust that the truth would eventually win.....that there would be a point at which the actors' pretending to be leaders would eventually stop and say to those in the crowd propping him up, "okay, okay, STOP ....I was just kidding! Why are you guys literally believing my lies? Didn't you read the writing on the wall as you came in that said this is a speech about fake news? How stupid are you guys? I was trying to demonstrate how fake news operates by telling you fake news and trying to stay in character presuming you knew this was just me presenting how convincing fake news is for many. Please go home. The show is over. I didn't mean for this to turn into another reality show!"

I don't know who to blame for this circus clown's game.? While granted he made his point that he's a good actor by staying in character, Trump won't get off the stage not because he can, but because the actual crowds are keeping him from leaving! Given he won't concede, this MUST mean he is hiding something so sinister that to leave the White House is certain to reveal him and get him and his supporting actors locked up for life!

[Scott Mayers]

If anyone other than Congress censors the President's voice, it's a mob action.

Any broadcast media that was supposed to broadcast his message, and didn't, should have their valuable license to broadcast, yanked.

It doesn't matter who the president is.

It doesn't even matter if he is senile and babbling.

Who's the censor, btw? A freak with a Gandalf beard? Nobody voted for him. He doesn't represent the people.

The censorship this time was the most extreme I've ever seen it. I think that given he had been inciting his crowds to hate the media as cheats at all cost, the media recognized that they had to give him what he wanted by 'cheating' that he existed universally across all media on the day of his most 'important' speech against them. I mean, this is HIS Machivellian behavior backfiring on him. So why should he not now RESPECT the very media for putting their foot down just as he has proven it most effective!?