ADVERTISEMENT

Criminal charges if government says your speech is propaganda?

Should there be criminal charges if the government accuses someone of spreading propaganda?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

seminole97

HB Legend
Jun 14, 2005
26,539
26,973
113


As Aaron Mate points out, her hypocrisy (and lack of shame) knows no bounds:

To make her argument against free speech, she invokes the Russiagate scam that itself was the product of her campaign's own propaganda. Speaking of which, the case that she invokes here -- Mueller charging some Russians for social media activity -- led to Mueller dropping the case after the Russian company showed up to fight the case in court.



Here is the full transcript via RealClearPolitics

MADDOW: Speaking of dictators, the Justice Department and the State Department have taken another of act -- a number of actions in the past several weeks, striking actions, to both call out and indict and take action against the Kremlin for their attempts at interfering in this -- in yet another presidential election cycle on Trump's behalf.

The State Department has put out a $10 million reward for information leading to -- for information about people who are trying to -- about entities that are trying to illegally interfere in our election. We have seen these dramatic indictments from the Justice Department, including for paying millions of dollars, the Kremlin paying millions of dollars to pro-Trump influencers.

We have seen the Justice Department seize Web domains, where the Kremlin had set up news sites, what looked like news sites, looked like versions of American news sites, but were secretly operated by the Russian intelligence services or by the Russian government.

You feel like the U.S. government is sort of starting to figure out how to do this and taking this seriously enough, or do you still think there's a far distance to go?

CLINTON: I think there's a far distance to go.

I applaud the actions taken by the Justice Department and the State Department. I think that they're very important. But, truly, we are just at the beginning of uncovering everything that Russia, but not just Russia, other countries, have done and are doing to influence our election.

If you focus on Russia -- and I commend you, Rachel, for your new movie -- because we are only at the beginning of understanding the whole iceberg here. What the Russians started doing in 2015 and 2016, what they continued doing, they have gotten more sophisticated. They aren't even pretending anymore.

Their international news operation, Russia Today, R.T., is an arm of the Russian government, an arm of its intelligence operation. It's basically an extension of their spying efforts. They are using Americans, both those who are witting and willing and those who are unwittingand are just so surprised they're getting $400,000 a week or $100,000 a podcast to parrot Kremlin propaganda.

We know from what even Republicans have said, the chairs of the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee and other Republicans who are currently in office have said that Republicans go to the floor of the Congress and they parrot Russian talking points.

So, I think it's important to indict the Russians, just as Mueller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda.

And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States. They're not going to be going to a country where they can be extradited or even returning to the United States, unless they are very foolish.

So I think we need to uncover all of the connections and make it very clear that you could vote however you want, but we are not going to let adversaries, whether it is Russia, China, Iran, or anybody else, basically try to influence Americans as to how we should vote in picking our leaders.
 
I don't think most Dems are going to get behind Hillary on what she was saying that interview.

She came across as out of touch, bitter, and fairly extreme in that interview. I was watching her and thinking about how Trump sounded like an old man yelling at the clouds in last week's debate. Same vibes.
 


As Aaron Mate points out, her hypocrisy (and lack of shame) knows no bounds:

To make her argument against free speech, she invokes the Russiagate scam that itself was the product of her campaign's own propaganda. Speaking of which, the case that she invokes here -- Mueller charging some Russians for social media activity -- led to Mueller dropping the case after the Russian company showed up to fight the case in court.



Here is the full transcript via RealClearPolitics
If you can’t trust politicians to discern what is and is not propaganda, I don’t know who you can trust.
 
Absolutely not. Americans are free to say what they please when they want to. Of course, there are a few exceptions to this, but the bottom line is that speech is free. Even if it goes against what other people believe.
 
Is it your free speech? If you’re reading from a script directly from a from a foreign government.


If in 2003 someone says that Iraq doesn’t have WMD ready to launch in 45 minutes and Tony Blair is lying, is that a ‘Saddam talking point’ that can get the speaker punished for repeating it?

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
 
If in 2003 someone says that Iraq doesn’t have WMD ready to launch in 45 minutes and Tony Blair is lying, is that a ‘Saddam talking point’ that can get the speaker punished for repeating it?

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
it’s nuanced. From the cases I’ve seen that look suspiciously like a coordinated marketing campaign. Instead of someone examining evidence and forming an opinion.
 
Even though it probably should, but either the US is the land of the free or it isn't
 
it’s nuanced. From the cases I’ve seen that look suspiciously like a coordinated marketing campaign. Instead of someone examining evidence and forming an opinion.
Hillary was spouting disinformation about Iraqi WMD that ended up getting thousands of Americans killed.

But for some reason that’s never the ‘disinformation’ they have in mind.
 
Holy fvck!
Crazy, right?

Even the Libya intervention was sold on complete lies, and that neocon regime change adventure was actually considered by the Clinton group to be her signature 'achievement' as Secretary of State:

https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-...ow-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

Anew report by the British Parliament shows that the 2011 NATO war in Libya was based on an array of lies.

"Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK’s future policy options," an investigation by the House of Commons' bipartisan Foreign Affairs Committee, strongly condemns the U.K.'s role in the war, which toppled the government of Libya's leader Muammar Qaddafi and plunged the North African country into chaos.

"We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya," the report states. "UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence."

The Foreign Affairs Committee concludes that the British government "failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element."

...

The report explains "the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change." This view has been challenged, however, by Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Zenko used NATO’s own materials to show that “the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start.”

In its investigation, the Foreign Affairs Committee cites a June 2011 Amnesty International report, which noted that "much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge."

Amnesty International also said it was unable to find evidence for the accusation that the Libyan government had given Viagra to its troops and encouraged them to rape women in rebel-held areas.
Then-Secretary of State Clinton, among others, had contributed to this unproven myth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeangeloVickers
it’s nuanced. From the cases I’ve seen that look suspiciously like a coordinated marketing campaign. Instead of someone examining evidence and forming an opinion.
lol. This is how mass media works to spread a narrative as well. Next time there is any political discourse on a singular topic, take notice at how everyone on each side, from the media to the idiot in Appalachia, is quick to adopt the same talking points and buzzwords.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeShawn
i'm as concerned about this as i was when trump wanted to change all the libel laws to go after media outlets

but that was a few years ago...so it no longer registers with the outrage merchants
 
d7c7d2cd-2adb-434d-96b3-7ec78a826be5_text.gif
 
i'm as concerned about this as i was when trump wanted to change all the libel laws to go after media outlets

but that was a few years ago...so it no longer registers with the outrage merchants
This is one of the funnier 'but Trump" I have seen lately.
 
I sort of agree with @Bonerfarts. If a foreign government is paying you directly or indirectly to say the stuff you are saying, you need to make that perfectly clear. I would say you need to note that when you make the statements and you need to register that information with the government.

Doesn't mean you can't say it but the people need to know who your financial backers are. Normally if you are getting sponsored by companies it is easy. Your financial backers are whoever you are advertising for. If you are getting money from a foreign government to say stuff. The people need to know that.
 
lol. This is how mass media works to spread a narrative as well. Next time there is any political discourse on a singular topic, take notice at how everyone on each side, from the media to the idiot in Appalachia, is quick to adopt the same talking points and buzzwords.
But it’s still different if you as a content provider are taking million dollar checks . At that point it’s sponsored content. And should be listed as such.
 
I will put it this way: I will say yes, but with the caveat that you have to prove that the person did it to intentionally deceive/manipulate.

Which means it would be on the books, but almost impossible to prove except in very egregious cases where it would definitely deserve prosecution. And you would not be charging the Grandpa who probably should not be on Facebook.
 
Absolutely not. Americans are free to say what they please when they want to. Of course, there are a few exceptions to this, but the bottom line is that speech is free. Even if it goes against what other people believe.

Government: Lockdowns work! Stay at home or get a fine!

American: That’s stupid and wrong!

Government: Hey that’s misinformation and Russian propaganda!

A few months later….

Government: Actually lockdowns didn’t do shit. Oops.

Can we see the issue here?
 
I support the foreign agents / propaganda act. Those that are being paid by a foreign government propaganda without registering as a foreign agent should be penalized.

Does this mean the US should arrest and prosecute Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for importing foreigners against the immigration laws of the USA?

They can easily be considered foreign agents by their actions.
 


As Aaron Mate points out, her hypocrisy (and lack of shame) knows no bounds:

To make her argument against free speech, she invokes the Russiagate scam that itself was the product of her campaign's own propaganda. Speaking of which, the case that she invokes here -- Mueller charging some Russians for social media activity -- led to Mueller dropping the case after the Russian company showed up to fight the case in court.



Here is the full transcript via RealClearPolitics
Way to put chains on democracy, Hill
 
I voted no, but I'd change that to a yes if we can charge government officials, and they get double the sentence. We can start with the intelligence officials that said the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation. We can continue with Fauci. Then we can continue with the White House press secretary. Then we can go on with the House and Senate. Then we can do the Attorney General, and other cabinet members.
 
The Lügenpresse is the enemy of the people, isn’t it?

Swear I’ve heard that somewhere before…
Fox News? Prove me wrong. They have caused irreparable damage to our country with their nightly lies, with one coming straight from a Russian Propagandist. That lying entity is the enemy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4 and TheCainer
This really comes down to what is the truth. Should Trump get in trouble fore stating Haitians are abducting and eating cats and dogs? It is a false claim to put fear in the voting base. Where are we when Trump continues to state that he won the 2020 election, and was willing to overturn government processes to let him retain power? It is a slippery slope . . . you have the possibility of turning into a Venezuelan mess if there is never any consequences for actions and we never one to hold our leadership accountable. You give them too much leeway, and they effectively leave the station.

I am not sure how you would enforce and who would be the referee. I am not a yes, but I really think something needs done.
 
This really comes down to what is the truth. Should Trump get in trouble fore stating Haitians are abducting and eating cats and dogs? It is a false claim to put fear in the voting base.

Should Hillary get in trouble for stating that Iraq had WMD? It was a false claim to put fear in the voting base.

What's the appropriate punishment when pols push lies that lead to wars where hundreds of thousands die?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT