What's wrong with having a "Ministry of Truth"?

Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat: Republicans are ridiculing the idea of a Ministry of Truth, which was proposed (under a different term than "ministry of truth" ) by some Democrat who thought this was needed in order to weed out disinformation or fake news in the social media.

But what would be wrong with a Ministry of Truth (whatever it's called)?

Isn't that what the Jury System is, in criminal trials and civil suits? Doesn't the trial court procedure determine what the truth is? Doesn't it distinguish the facts from the falsehoods in order to determine whether a crime was committed?

So, why shouldn't we have something similar to determine who's telling the truth, in social media or wherever there is fake news or disinformation? Those who are against having a Ministry of Truth must have something to hide. What are they afraid of, unless it's that they'd be exposed for their lies?
(Edited by Lumpenproletariat)
1 month ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: hey, lumpy is back!! It is against free speech, is for the dem agenda against other thoughts and opinions
1 month ago Report
1
laffer80
laffer80: The Ministry of Truth lasted a tad longer than CNN+. 😂. Having someone known for disseminating disinformation leading the Orwellian effort sure didn’t help. 😂
1 month ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

lori100: It is against free speech, . . .
_______________

Who says a "Ministry of Truth" has to be against free speech? It's the opposite.

Is the Jury System against free speech? No, it's MORE free speech, because it promotes truth-seeking. The point is to determine what the truth is. How does pursuing the truth suppress free speech? More pursuit of truth necessarily requires more speech, more asking questions, more investigating, more challenging the answers to the questions, more analyzing the answers given to expose the ones which are false. All this questioning and reviewing the facts and exposing what is true and what is false leads to more dialogue, more communication, more free speech.

Perhaps all this investigating and questioning and analyzing the answers will lead to people reducing the amount of lying they do, or reducing the dishonesty. Is that against free speech? If by "free speech" you mean more dishonesty and more lying, then in a sense the "Ministry of Truth" would discourage some "free speech" because it discourages lying and dishonesty. Like requiring witnesses to swear to tell the truth reduces their "free speech" to tell lies.

So yes, in that sense the "Ministry of Truth" might be seen as a threat to free speech, meaning the free speech to tell lies and deceive and commit fraud, etc. But that should not be our understanding of what "free speech" means. And it's only in that sense that a "Ministry of Truth" would be a threat to free speech.

The purpose of the "Ministry of Truth" must be to find the truth, and discourage lying and deceiving and fraud. Just as the purpose of courts and juries is to find the truth. Courts and juries and truth-seeking are good for society and serve to promote our freedoms and rights, and are not a threat to our right to free speech.

________________

lori100: . . . is for the dem agenda against other thoughts and opinions
____________________

No, the courts and juries are not for the dem agenda and against other thoughts and opinions.

Of course we could rig the courts and juries so they would promote the dem agenda and suppress anything contrary to the Democratic Party. However, there is no reason to think we would do that or that everything we do has to end up promoting the Dems.

Should we do nothing at all, or cease from any actions or decision-making because these must automatically promote the dem agenda and suppress any thoughts or opinions contrary to the dems? so no one should ever do or decide anything, and we should sit and rot? because no matter what we do, it necessarily promotes the dem agenda?


1 month ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

laffer80: Having someone known for disseminating disinformation leading the Orwellian effort sure didn’t help.
_____________________

We should all be "leading the effort" to pursue truth. That's what the "Ministry of Truth" would do. Why does it matter who leads the effort? Why should anyone be against the pursuit of truth and exposing lies and falsehood and dishonesty and fraud? unless they have something to hide?

If it's not good to pursue truth and expose falsehoods, then why do we have courts and juries?

Are you against doing the right thing because you dislike someone who is leading the effort to do the right thing?

Calling it "Orwellian" doesn't tell us why truth-seeking is something bad. Name-calling and labeling doesn't address the substance of what is proposed. Why is it wrong for government to establish a truth-seeking effort? such as the courts and juries are?

Doesn't this truth-seeking serve a legitimate social function? or meet a legitimate social need? because a society needs to be able to establish what the truth is in order to do its necessary decision-making?
1 month ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: nothing dems do is for free speech
1 month ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: Lumpy…


Lump: “Why does it matter who leads the effort?”

There should be no government effort to decide what free speech is true or untrue.

Lump: “ Why should anyone be against the pursuit of truth and exposing lies and falsehood and dishonesty and fraud?

You don’t need a Ministry of Truth to do that.

Lump: “unless they have something to hide?”

Being against a Ministry of Truth doesn’t mean you want to hide anything.

Lump: “If it's not good to pursue truth and expose falsehoods, then why do we have courts and juries?”

You don’t need a Ministry of Truth to do that. That’s why we have courts and juries.

Lump: “ Are you against doing the right thing because you dislike someone who is leading the effort to do the right thing?”

Being against a Ministry of Truth is not being against doing the right thing.

Lump: “ Why is it wrong for government to establish a truth-seeking effort? such as the courts and juries are?”

There is nothing wrong with having courts and juries.

Lump: “Doesn't this truth-seeking serve a legitimate social function?”

Yes. Just not by a Ministry of Truth.

Lump: “ or meet a legitimate social need?”

Yes. Just not by a Ministry of Truth

Lump: “because a society needs to be able to establish what the truth is in order to do its necessary decision-making?”

People in a society do. We don’t need a Ministry of Truth to do it for us.
1 month ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

Laffer80:

Lump: “Why does it matter who leads the effort?”

There should be no government effort to decide what free speech is true or untrue.

_______________

But that's what courts do. They ask questions to determine the truth. Someone is accusing someone else of a crime, e.g., and the courts investigate this claim to determine if the claim is true.

But if government should never decide which claims are true and which ones false, then it should not have these courts and juries to determine what is true or untrue. So if you say there "should be no government to decide what is true or untrue," then you must favor elimination of courts and juries.
_______________

Lump: “ Why should anyone be against the pursuit of truth and exposing lies and falsehood and dishonesty and fraud?

You don’t need a Ministry of Truth to do that.
_______________

You're just quibbling over the terminology. We don't need to call it "Ministry of Truth." Call it something else. But we do need something more than we have now to determine what the truth is and to expose the falsehoods.

On the issue of climate change, e.g., there is a serious need to get the truth presented, because of the very high stakes. There are lies being told about this. No matter what your point of view is, there has to be some lying on one side or the other, and this should be exposed. And there are ways it could be investigated, like juries investigate and get to the facts. Why shouldn't we try to find out what the facts are about this and some other critical issues, and make the truth better known to the public? These are life-and-death matters probably more consequential than whether a particular crime was committed.
__________________

Lump: “unless they have something to hide?”

Being against a Ministry of Truth doesn’t mean you want to hide anything.
__________________

But if you have nothing to hide, why would you be against pursuing the truth, which is what the "Ministry of Truth" would do? Again, you're just quibbling over the terminology. Just because you want to call it something other than "Ministry of Truth" is no reason to prevent society from having this truth-seeking program, to expose lies and determine what are the facts, like we do in the case of criminal and civil court cases.

Why would someone be against having criminal and civil court cases unless they wanted to hide the truth about those conflicts which are being judged? Isn't there a social need to determine the truth in such cases?
___________________

Lump: “If it's not good to pursue truth and expose falsehoods, then why do we have courts and juries?”

You don’t need a Ministry of Truth to do that. That’s why we have courts and juries.
__________________

But the courts and juries we have are limited to pursuing truth only for alleged crimes. Why do you think this is the only need for pursuing truth? We have many other such needs. Doesn't the government subsidize science? e.g., science research? Isn't that also an example of truth-seeking?

There are many examples of the government promoting truth-seeking, and this "Ministry of Truth" (whatever it's called) would only be a further extension of truth-seeking to meet a need for society which is currently being neglected.

I think the example of climate change might be the best example, but certainly there are others. There are issues where we need more investigation and publishing of findings, or establishing what the facts are which the average person cannot investigate individually in order to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth.

Are the polar icecaps really decreasing because of melting, or is this a lie being promulgated by certain scientists? Why shouldn't we have something more definite which answers this?

And what about the benefits of wearing the masks? Some say these help reduce the spread of the virus, while others say this is a lie and that research has proved that the face masks make no difference. Who's telling the truth? How do we know?

The average person has no way to gather the data and do the measurements and make the determinations. The sources of information we have currently are not enough. And yet surely there are objective impartial answers to these and also to many other crucial questions about what's happening. Just as there are neutral and objective answers to questions about whether a crime was committed.

Why would someone oppose having better answers to these questions?
_________________

Lump: “ Are you against doing the right thing because you dislike someone who is leading the effort to do the right thing?”

Being against a Ministry of Truth is not being against doing the right thing.
_________________

Then give a legitimate reason why you're against it. Instead of just name-calling someone who favors it as "someone known for disseminating disinformation leading the Orwellian effort".

Whoever you mean -- someone you obviously hate -- to just call them a name and condemn their proposal because you hate them is not a good reason to be against something.

If you're against this thing, whatever it's called, you need to say why it would be bad, not just tell us that the one "leading" it is bad. You don't prove something is bad by condemning the one in favor of it as being someone bad.
______________________

Lump: “ Why is it wrong for government to establish a truth-seeking effort? such as the courts and juries are?”

There is nothing wrong with having courts and juries.
___________________

But then there's also nothing wrong with having the "Ministry of Truth" (whatever it's called) because it's function would be essentially the same as the courts and juries, except that it would not be limited to resolving accusations of crimes or civil damages. It would serve the same basic need to find the truth in matters where essential decisions are needed for social benefit.
____________________

Lump: “Doesn't this truth-seeking serve a legitimate social function?”

Yes. Just not by a Ministry of Truth.
_____________________

Again, you're just obsessing on the terminology. Of course it would not really be called "Ministry of Truth". In fact, no one has seriously suggested that this would be its title. Can't we argue the substance and get away from the semantics.
_______________________

Lump: “ or meet a legitimate social need?”

Yes. Just not by a Ministry of Truth
_______________________

Why must you continue to fall back on the semantics instead of dealing with the substance? Can't you figure out that this "Ministry of Truth" term is only sarcastic jargon?

To keep falling back onto this semantics is the same as to keep calling something "Nazism" or "Communism" or a "racism" because you cannot deal with the real issue.
_______________________

Lump: “because a society needs to be able to establish what the truth is in order to do its necessary decision-making?”

People in a society do.
_______________________

Same thing. The people are the society.
_______________________

We don’t need a Ministry of Truth to do it for us.
_______________________

Once again you are obsessing on the semantics, the terminology, instead of the substance.
(Edited by Lumpenproletariat)
1 month ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: Lump…. Yikes. Lol. I did my best. 😉

_______________ 1

Laffer: There should be no government effort to decide what free speech is true or untrue.

Lump: “But that's what courts do. They ask questions to determine the truth. Someone is accusing someone else of a crime, e.g., and the courts investigate this claim to determine if the claim is true.”

I don’t know how much more clear i can be. Courts are fine of course. I am talking about the executive branch of the government. There should be no government effort OUTSIDE OF THE JUDICIARY to decide what free speech is true or untrue.

_______________ 2

Lump: “You're just quibbling over the terminology. We don't need to call it "Ministry of Truth." Call it something else. But we do need something more than we have now to determine what the truth is and to expose the falsehoods.”

You’re quibbling over its name. We don’t need the Ministry of Truth function in the Executive branch.

__________________ 3

Lump: “On the issue of climate change… “

The climate change hoax is a good example of why we DON’T need a Ministry of Truth.

__________________ 4

Lump: “But if you have nothing to hide, why would you be against pursuing the truth, which is what the "Ministry of Truth" would do?”

I am repeating myself now. Being against a Ministry of Truth doesn’t mean you want to hide anything. Like i’ve said already.

__________________ 5

Lump: “But the courts and juries we have are limited to pursuing truth only for alleged crimes. Why do you think this is the only need for pursuing truth?”

The courts aren’t the only pursuers of truth. Media. You. Me. We are all seeming truth.

__________________ 6

Lump: “We have many other such needs. Doesn't the government subsidize science? e.g., science research? Isn't that also an example of truth-seeking?”

Scientific discover does not seeking truth. It seeks understanding.

__________________ 7

Lump: “There are issues where we need more investigation and publishing of findings, or establishing what the facts are which the average person cannot investigate individually in order to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth.”

We don’t need the government to decide what is truth. We need government to be truthful about facts and let the people decide.

__________________ 8

Lump: “The average person has no way to do the measurements and make this determination. The sources of information we have currently are not enough.”

I trust the people far more than you do.

__________________ 9

Lump: “Why would someone oppose having better answers to these questions?”

I don’t. I just want to decide what is true for myself.

_________________ 10

Lump: “Then give a legitimate reason why you're against it (the Ministry of Truth)”

I already said. I want the people to decide truth. I don’t want the government doing that for me. I don’t trust them to do it for me.

___________________ 11

Lump: But then there's also nothing wrong with having the "Ministry of Truth" (whatever it's called) because it's function would be essentially the same as the courts and juries, except that it would not be limited to resolving accusations of crimes or civil damages. It would serve the same basic need to find the truth in matters where essential decisions are needed for social benefit.

I n a court of law i am judged by my peers - by the people.

_______________________ 12

Lump: Why must you continue to fall back on the semantics instead of dealing with the substance?

You are the one hung up on semantics. I am talking about the function. Call it whatever you like. I’ll refer to it by that name.

_______________________ 13

Lump: “because a society needs to be able to establish what the truth is in order to do its necessary decision-making?”

Laffer: People in a society do.

Lump: “Same thing. The people are the society.”

Right. And the government is neither society nor “the people”

______________________

In summary, bottom line….

You want the executive branch to decide truth for the people and society.

I want the people to decide truth. Even in court - a jury of my peers. I don’t trust the government to do it for me.
1 month ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

laffer80: Courts are fine of course. I am talking about the executive branch of the government. There should be no government effort OUTSIDE OF THE JUDICIARY to decide what free speech is true or untrue.
_________________________

All 3 branches already have efforts to decide what claims are true or untrue. To say the Congress or the President should have no power to ever decide what is true or false is ludicrous. How could they function if they are prohibited from ever trying to determine what is true or false?

What we need is a new program to investigate issues where there is lying or deception or distortion that is causing confusion among the public, so that the average person is unable to determine what's really happening. About life-and-death issues that matter to everyone.

It doesn't matter whether it's put into the Executive or Legislative or Judicial branch. Why should it matter which branch it comes under? What's important is for it be impartial and nonpartisan. This may be difficult, but not impossible. Aren't courts and juries impartial? Surely the juries which decide criminal cases are not Republican or Democrat. And likewise the "Ministry of Truth" (whatever we call it) could also be made to be impartial, just as juries are. Regardless which branch it comes under.

This new department of government would have to be structured so that it is non-partisan, meaning it would be organized differently than the current Congressional investigations are organized. This is possible, if the effort is made, but since all 3 branches have become politicized, something special is needed in order to separate this new department from the usual partisan politics. Somehow we do still have neutral juries, even though the Executive departments and the Congressional committees have been compromised politically. The Courts are not impartial enough, but the jury system is, and so the new "Ministry of Truth" we need (regardless what it's really called) would have to be structured so that it operates similarly to juries, taking decision-makers randomly from the population rather than by electioneering and partisan political appointment.
_______________

laffer80:

Lump: “You're just quibbling over the terminology. We don't need to call it "Ministry of Truth." Call it something else. But we do need something more than we have now to determine what the truth is and to expose the falsehoods.”

You’re quibbling over its name. We don’t need the Ministry of Truth function in the Executive branch.
_____________________________

How can you say we don't need truth-seeking and fact-finding? that we don't need to have the facts rather than lies? Whatever you call this thing, its function is to establish the truth and expose the lies. To say we don't need it is to say there is no need to separate the truth from the lies, and that it's OK for all of us to be deceived about scientific objective facts which can be determined, just as truth can be determined about whether a crime was committed.

Why are you making an issue out of what branch it's in? What we need is some kind of fact-finding department, operating similarly to how juries operate, in order to provide better information to the public on some important issues where there is widespread disinformation and deception taking place. Just as the average person cannot find the truth by investigating individual crimes to determine if a suspect is guilty or innocent, likewise the average person cannot determine the scientific facts about all the issues where there is widespread disinformation and deception going on.

Whether it's in the Executive or Legislative or Judicial branch is not important.
__________________

laffer80:

Lump: “On the issue of climate change… “

The climate change hoax is a good example of why we DON’T need a Ministry of Truth.
__________________

So your premise that we don't need this is that science is a hoax, which is false. We need science, and where 99% of the science experts agree, it's probably true, not a hoax. So your argument against a "Ministry of Truth" to combat disinformation is that we cannot trust scientists, because they are all conspiring to perpetrate a hoax.
__________________

laffer80:

Lump: “But if you have nothing to hide, why would you be against pursuing the truth, which is what the "Ministry of Truth" would do?”

I am repeating myself now. Being against a Ministry of Truth doesn’t mean you want to hide anything. Like I’ve said already.
__________________

But why are you against investigating to find out what the truth is? If you're against the "Ministry of Truth" (whatever we call it), you're against having a government department to investigate lies and determine what the truth is. Why would you oppose such investigating to determine the truth if you're not trying to conceal the truth? What's wrong with having an agency which tries to determine the truth?
___________________

laffer80:

Lump: “But the courts and juries we have are limited to pursuing truth only for alleged crimes. Why do you think this is the only need for pursuing truth?”

The courts aren’t the only pursuers of truth. Media. You. Me. We are all seeming truth.
__________________

No, courts are not the same as media. The juries are more trustworthy because they are forced to follow a discipline of questioning and doubting and rules of evidence, plus also an impartiality which guarantees that they are not politically partisan.

That's not what "media, you, and me" are. Juries are one institution in society which we can trust to get to the facts. Though they're not perfect, we can be reasonably certain that they get to the facts much better than the media or you or I can do, with our limitations.

And we need something like that now to help us decide what the truth is about some life-and-death issues of great importance, but which are being propagandized by the popular media. We cannot trust any of the media or the political institutions, not even the education or religious establishments.
________________

laffer80:

Lump: “We have many other such needs. Doesn't the government subsidize science? e.g., science research? Isn't that also an example of truth-seeking?”

Scientific discover does not seeking truth. It seeks understanding.
__________________

It seeks facts. I.e., the same as "truth" and also understanding. When government promotes science, it is promoting truth-seeking and fact-finding and understanding.
___________________

laffer80:

Lump: “There are issues where we need more investigation and publishing of findings, or establishing what the facts are which the average person cannot investigate individually in order to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth.”

We don’t need the government to decide what is truth.
__________________

Yes we do need it to help, just as we need it to establish courts and juries and impose rules or discipline on these to pursue evidence and facts rather than yielding to popular pressure and ideology and passion.

The alternative is the lynch mob, and there is a dangerous lynch-mob mentality today deciding some vital public issues which require fact-finding and questioning rather than a public stampede.
___________________

laffer80:

We need government to be truthful about facts and let the people decide.
__________________

Yes, but that means establishing facts through a disciplined process of questioning and evidence and fact-finding which the average person alone, individually, cannot do. "The people" individually cannot decide the facts of a criminal case but must have juries determine the facts or the truth of what happened. And the same applies to other facts of science and events which each individual cannot determine but must rely on experts who can testify about it, to give us reliable information upon which we can then make our individual judgments.
_____________________

laffer80:

Lump: “The average person has no way to do the measurements and make this determination. The sources of information we have currently are not enough.”

I trust the people far more than you do.
_____________________

No, you trust only people who agree with your opinion.

What we need are not just "the people" but knowledgeable people like experts or scientists or scholars or others directly connected to the facts we're searching for. This requires a disciplined procedure of fact-finding and evidence and research and data-gathering which none of us individually can do. We can all participate in such a process, but only such a process (involving many minds joining together) can reliably provide us with the facts we need. (such as we have with juries)
_________________

laffer80

Lump: “Why would someone oppose having better answers to these questions?”

I don’t. I just want to decide what is true for myself.
_________________________

But we don't each have our own independent truth for ourselves. E.g., you can't have your own independent truth about the guilt or innocence of an accused criminal. You're free to disbelieve the facts which are arrived at by the disciplined process of fact-finding and evidence and questioning. But this process has to exist, to help us recognize the facts better. And some judgment might be made which you disagree with. But we must have that process to determine as a society what course to take.

_________________

laffer80:

Lump: “Then give a legitimate reason why you're against it (the Ministry of Truth)”

I already said. I want the people to decide truth.
_________________

Do "the people" decide if there's going to be an eclipse of the sun?

What "truth"? Whether an accused criminal is guilty? How do "the people" decide this? The only way "the people" can decide something is for there be a process, open to all, transparent, and questioning everything and trying to answer every question.

For some critical issues it cannot just be left to each individual to decide what the truth is. We need facts which we cannot individually determine but for which must rely on a truth-seeking process, like a jury goes through. What's wrong with having a social agency doing this, to find the truth we cannot each determine individually, just as we cannot individually determine whether someone accused of a crime is guilty? You're not demanding the power for yourself to decide every criminal case, are you?
_____________________

laffer80:

I don’t want the government doing that for me.
___________

Yes you do. You want the government (the jury) to decide if the defendant is guilty. There is truth which is left to government to decide, though a system or process.
______________

laffer80:

I don’t trust them to do it for me.
________________________

Yes you do trust them. For some important facts you rely on government, or a process established by government in order to determine the facts.
__________________

laffer80:

Lump: But then there's also nothing wrong with having the "Ministry of Truth" (whatever it's called) because it's function would be essentially the same as the courts and juries, except that it would not be limited to resolving accusations of crimes or civil damages. It would serve the same basic need to find the truth in matters where essential decisions are needed for social benefit.

In a court of law i am judged by my peers - by the people.
_____________________

Yes, they determine the facts of the case. Through a rigorous process of truth-finding and evidence. And this process could also serve to determine many other important facts we need to know but which we are misled about, due to distortion and lies and propaganda.

Just as lies and propaganda and lynch mobs cannot be allowed to determine outcomes for accused criminals, so also they should not be relied on for determining the truth about climate change or public health measures to take or other life-and-death social issues.
______________

laffer80:

Lump: Why must you continue to fall back on the semantics instead of dealing with the substance?

You are the one hung up on semantics. I am talking about the function. Call it whatever you like. I’ll refer to it by that name.
_______________________

refer to what? what function? This is about a public agency to operate like courts or juries to determine what the facts are about critical issues needing to be resolved in order to promote everyone's well being, similar to our need to know whether a criminal suspect is guilty, except the issues in question are likely of greater importance and consequence than just resolving one particular crime. They are life-and-death issues which impact heavily on our future, and having bad information could result in disastrous consequences for millions or even billions of people.

Why isn't it better for us to have a truth-seeking process which could resolve it and give us reliable facts, such as we get with juries deliberating a criminal case? Why isn't that better than leaving such issues to be determined by a mob of fanatics? by the media? by talk-show hosts? by comedians and entertainers and propagandists and celebrities entertaining a mob of spectators? Why do you prefer this to a disciplined process of inquiry and fact-finding and evidence-gathering?
___________________

laffer80:

Lump: “because a society needs to be able to establish what the truth is in order to do its necessary decision-making?”

Laffer: People in a society do.

Lump: “Same thing. The people are the society.”

Right. And the government is neither society nor “the people”
___________________

You mean without government people in society enforce the laws and dispense justice? We have courts and police and national defense and infrastructure, but we do this without government?

How do "the people" or "society" do all these things without any government?
______________________

laffer80:

In summary, bottom line….

You want the executive branch to decide truth for the people and society.
_____________________

No, it's not essential which branch does the deciding. We need something similar to juries to "decide truth" on some matters of critical importance to us all, because of mass disinformation and propaganda and distortion and deception, which is very harmful to our future -- and which can be offset if we had some kind of truth-seeking process similar to the way juries are chosen and operate, to decide the truth we need in order to resolve the critical matters. We are suffering severe consequences from this, and this suffering will get much worse if we don't fix this.
_____________

laffer80:

I want the people to decide truth. Even in court - a jury of my peers. I don’t trust the government to do it for me.
_________________

What "court"? what "jury"? Where do these come from if they aren't established by "the government"?
(Edited by Lumpenproletariat)
1 month ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80:
Lump…. Ok. Now you’re just going in 100 different directions. One at a time…. Or i’ll be here all day.

———————————-

laffer80: I am talking about the executive branch of the government. There should be no government effort OUTSIDE OF THE JUDICIARY to decide what free speech is true or untrue.

Lump: “All 3 branches already have efforts to decide what claims are true or untrue.”

What is your example of an executive branch “effort to decide what free speech is true or untrue”?
1 month ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

laffer80:

I am talking about the executive branch of the government. There should be no government effort OUTSIDE OF THE JUDICIARY to decide what free speech is true or untrue.

Lump: “All 3 branches already have efforts to decide what claims are true or untrue.”

What is your example of an executive branch “effort to decide what free speech is true or untrue”?
______________________

The FDA makes determinations on the claims of companies about the ingredients in their products, about claims of health benefits, about claims that there are certain vitamins or certain amounts of sodium or sugar.

Many claims of companies about their products are tested by government agencies which decide what claims they make are true or untrue.

And the legislative branch also does investigations of claims, in its committees and hearings.

There are investigations into claims of UFO sightings, and other claims of something which might be threatening or which scientists are interested in or which might be causing hysteria or fear. There are many reasons for different levels or different departments of government to investigate claims people are making. Science, public safety, public health, disaster prevention, law enforcement. How can you say no one other than the judicial branch can investigate claims being made in order to determine what's true or untrue?

There are many legitimate reasons to investigate and find the facts. Also good reasons to publish the findings, or issue a report to let the public know the truth. There should be more such investigations and more publishing the findings, and more rigorous process to follow, to extend the investigations further than they go now, including more investigations into the government itself, and into everyone who exercises power, to expose corruption and fraud by everyone public and private.

And this should include investigations into disinformation campaigns, no matter who might be spreading the disinformation.
(Edited by Lumpenproletariat)
1 month ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: Nothing you said represents investigating the truth of free speech. Not one.

Nor should there be any. Ever. This is America not a communist socialist dictatorship or Nazi regime. Thank God. The biggest purveyor of disinformation in America is government. You want to put the wolf in charge of the hen house.

The person you wanted in charge of the Ministry of Truth was a purveyor of disinformation. You think that doesn’t matter. I think it’s the whole point. The government can’t be trusted to do the job. Ever.
.
1 month ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

laffer80:

Nothing you said represents investigating the truth of free speech. Not one.
______________

All the examples I gave were about government investigating speech or claims people make to determine if the claims made are true or false.

E.g., companies make claims about their products. These claims are their free speech, in their advertising and promotions and labeling of their products. How is that not free speech and free press guaranteed in the 1st Amendment?

Agencies like FDA and others investigate these claims and make determinations whether the claims are true. You could call such agencies "Ministry of Truth" about business and advertising and products. They are judging the truth of the claims made, which is what a
"Ministry of Truth" would do.

So we already have "Ministry of Truth" agencies, and now we need to expand this to have disinformation or fake news claims investigated. And the procedure should be more like juries do in investigating and judging the truth, such as the way they determine a verdict in jury trials.

Such investigating claims being made is not an interference with free speech or free press guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.
__________________

laffer80:

Nor should there be any. Ever.
_________________

Yes there should be government investigation of claims made when these might pose a threat to society, or threat to the general welfare. There already is such investigating and there should be more of it. Investigating something is not the same as prohibiting it.
___________________

laffer80:

This is America not a communist socialist dictatorship or Nazi regime. Thank God.
___________________

Those dictatorships did not investigate anything. They just suppressed anything that posed a political threat to those in power. That's not what "Ministry of Truth" means.
___________________

laffer80:

The biggest purveyor of disinformation in America is government. You want to put the wolf in charge of the hen house.
________________

That's a "DEFUND THE POLICE!" argument.

The "wolf" is already in charge of the courts to resolve legal disputes and agencies which do law enforcement and guarantee product safety and truth in advertising and labeling. That's all wrong? We should have no courts? no regulating agencies? no FDA? no EPA? no FBI? no police? no agencies to ever investigate anything? no investigation of fraud? no prosecution of perjury?

To say government must never do anything because it's the worst offender of all means eliminating the government altogether. The government arguably is also the worst polluter, and so therefore there should be no anti-pollution laws? There should be no laws against violence because the government commits more violence than anyone else?

No, we must have government do these things, protecting society against the threats, and this must include protecting it from the government itself, which is also a threat. This can be done. We don't abolish the police just because the police themselves also commit crimes. We must have a legal system which guards against crime, and this has to include crimes by the government. We can do that. Government disinformation can also be investigated.
_______________

laffer80:

The person you wanted in charge of the Ministry of Truth was a purveyor of disinformation.
_______________

You're hallucinating. There's no suggestion who should be "in charge" of it. It should be structured so that there is no political faction dominating it, like no one political faction dominates the court system. It could be non-partisan, not subject to the party in power, and without appointees nominated by the President, i.e., a different system than that of the federal judges and justices. There are many ways a merit system could be used for choosing those who are "in charge" of it.
_______________

laffer80:

You think that doesn’t matter. I think it’s the whole point. The government can’t be trusted to do the job. Ever.
________________

I.e., it cannot ever be trusted to do anything, meaning you want it to be abolished entirely. Which is erroneous. Just because government is sometimes wrong about something does not mean it cannot do anything at all. We can make it work well enough so that it's better to have it than to abolish it altogether.

Even the agencies reliant on Presidential appointments are mostly non-partisan in the actual administration. E.g., the FDA does not abolish the previous policies every time a new President or Party comes into power. Most of the regulations remain the same through several administrations.

For a "Ministry of Truth" there would need to be extra safeguards to ensure nonpartisanship.
(Edited by Lumpenproletariat)
1 month ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: Lump: “companies make claims about their products. These claims are their free speech, in their advertising and promotions and labeling of their products. How is that not free speech and free press guaranteed in the 1st Amendment?

You are talking about companies who are being investigated for potentially breaking the law (fraud, etc.) by violating existing laws. Truth in advertising laws.

With your example in mind….

1. Do you think the government should charge people who spread disinformation that is otherwise legal free speech?

2. Did Nina Jankowicz, the former Disinformation Governance Board director, spread disinformation?

3. What should the government’s remedy be when someone like Jankowicz or you or me spreads disinformation - jail or fine or some other remedy?

What exactly are you calling for here?






1 month ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: laffer80:

This is America not a communist socialist dictatorship or Nazi regime. Thank God.
___________________

Lump: Those dictatorships did not investigate anything. They just suppressed anything that posed a political threat to those in power. That's not what "Ministry of Truth" means.

You mean like Hunter Biden’s laptop.
1 month ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: laffer80:

The person you wanted in charge of the Ministry of Truth was a purveyor of disinformation.
_______________

Lump: You're hallucinating. There's no suggestion who should be "in charge" of it.

Nina Jankowicz, the former Disinformation Governance Board director, was in charge. No hallucination required.
1 month ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: Lump: For a "Ministry of Truth" there would need to be extra safeguards to ensure nonpartisanship.

Nina Jankowicz, the former Disinformation Governance Board director, is as partisan a person as there is.
1 month ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: Biden says when the 2nd Amendment was written you couldn’t own a cannon. That’s disinformation.

Now what?
1 month ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: Lump: That's a "DEFUND THE POLICE!" argument…. To say government must never do anything because it's the worst offender of all means eliminating the government altogether.


And yet I never said “government must never do anything”. On the contrary, i’ve said the courts are legitimate. I’ve said Congress and the Executive should exist. I’ve objected only to one thing .. a Ministry of Truth.

YOU are using the DEFUND THE POLICE argument. I object to ONE THING and you accuse me of objecting to EVERYTHING.

This has now officially crossed over to the “insane”, not only accusing me of saying things i never said nor ever WOULD say, but of saying the OPPOSITE of what i Am actually saying. 🙄

Very strange.

(Edited by laffer80)
1 month ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: Washington Post senior editor Marc Fisher tweeted on Thursday: “Invented for Nazi infantrymen, further developed by the US military, the AR-15 was the Texas school shooter’s weapon of choice….” In reality, the AR-15 was not even designed until the mid-1950s, ten years after the Nazis had fallen.

Now what?
29 days ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: Kamala shared a Lincoln quote that she completely made up.

laffer80's Picture

Now what?
29 days ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

laffer80:

You are talking about companies who are being investigated for potentially breaking the law (fraud, etc.) by violating existing laws.
_________________

And this requires a determination of what the truth is. So government already has power to make determinations whether someone is telling the truth about something. And not only whether that someone is breaking a law. E.g., it might be a scientist claiming something which other scientists contradict. So government has legitimate power to overrule one expert based on what other experts say, and it can instruct a company to disregard the expert who is wrong and publish its information based on what the other experts say.

So government can already investigate someone's claims even if that someone is not breaking any law. That scientist who is being overruled is not breaking any law by publishing claims contradicted by other experts. And a government agency, like FDA e.g., can investigate those claims and overrule the one expert because of its findings from the other experts. So its investigative function is not restricted to investigating only someone accused of a crime.

So it's legitimate to have an agency which investigates claims being made, regardless whether the one making the claims is accused of a crime. Some claims are important enough that government should investigate them, regardless whether the one claiming it might be committing a crime. The one investigated might be innocent of any crime, but might be claiming something false, and this could be serious or threatening enough that there should be a response, even if not to restrict their free speech. The "Ministry of Truth" doesn't mean an agency to restrict speech or press, but only to investigate claims which are important to the society, or claims which relate to questions of public safety or social welfare.
___________________

laffer80:

Truth in advertising laws.
________________

Yes, laws granting some authority to government to investigate claims to determine what the truth is, including claims by someone who is not suspected of a crime.
_________________

laffer80:

With your example in mind….

1. Do you think the government should charge people who spread disinformation that is otherwise legal free speech?
___________________

"charge people"?

In some cases it should investigate their claims, or alleged disinformation, if this is something important for the public good.

E.g., there needs to be investigation of claims and counterclaims about climate change. This is a matter which might have huge consequences for the future, so that it's necessary to determine the truth. It's legitimate for there to be a "Ministry of Truth" (or whatever name it's called) which would investigate the claims, question the experts, possibly even subpoena some of them, or subpoena public figures making these claims to audiences of millions of listeners, in order to question them and require them to defend their claims, so that the truth can be determined. And then a judgment can be issued which declares what the truth is based on the questioning of all the experts on either side.

In some cases it's important enough that there needs to be a better determination of the truth than what we have now.
_____________________

laffer80:

2. Did Nina Jankowicz, the former Disinformation Governance Board director, spread disinformation?

3. What should the government’s remedy be when someone like Jankowicz or you or me spreads disinformation - jail or fine or some other remedy?

What exactly are you calling for here?
_____________________

The one accused of this might be issued a subpoena to appear and defend whatever they claimed. Only if they refuse to do this would they be subject to some penalty. Perhaps if they refuse to appear, they would be required to issue a retraction of whatever they said, in order to avoid any penalty.

Such actions against someone accused of this would be reserved only for those in positions of power, transmitting to millions of readers or listeners. Anyone holding that kind of power over an audience of millions should be held accountable for how they use that power, in cases of public matters having widespread impact on the population.
(Edited by Lumpenproletariat)
22 days ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

laffer80:

This is America not a communist socialist dictatorship or Nazi regime. Thank God.
___________________

Lump: Those dictatorships did not investigate anything. They just suppressed anything that posed a political threat to those in power. That's not what "Ministry of Truth" means.

You mean like Hunter Biden’s laptop.
____________________________

That's an example of why we need the "Ministry of Truth" (whatever it's called). To determine if there is such a laptop and what's in it.

Whereas the dictatorship would follow your advice and disallow any investigation of it and instead use it for partisan purposes. E.g., a Red dictatorship under Trump would produce the laptop and claim what was in it, use it to prove that the Bidens are guilty, imprison them, and say the case is closed without ever allowing anyone from the other side to investigate the laptop.
(Edited by Lumpenproletariat)
22 days ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

laffer80:

The person you wanted in charge of the Ministry of Truth was a purveyor of disinformation.
_______________

Lump: You're hallucinating. There's no suggestion who should be "in charge" of it.

Nina Jankowicz, the former Disinformation Governance Board director, was in charge. No hallucination required.
_________________

No, she was never "in charge" of a Ministry of Truth, nor did she request to be in charge of it, nor did she request that a Ministry of Truth be created.
(Edited by Lumpenproletariat)
22 days ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

laffer80:

Lump: For a "Ministry of Truth" there would need to be extra safeguards to ensure nonpartisanship.

Nina Jankowicz, the former Disinformation Governance Board director, is as partisan a person as there is.
____________

You're still obsessing on personalities you're afraid of. This distracts from the question of whether we need a "Ministry of Truth" (whatever it's called).

Again, the climate change debate is one where there is some disinformation, or there are contradictory claims being made on either side. Something needs to change which would clear this up. We need better information on this important matter. There is disinformation being spread about it which is doing serious public harm, and especially will cause serious widespread harm in the future if its not corrected.
22 days ago Report
0
Page: 12