5
5
0
Censorship or...?
"As the Supreme Court eloquently declared in its landmark 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion ...”'
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, Maj Marty Hogan,
1SG Steven Imerman, SMSgt David A Asbury,
MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi, MSgt David Hoffman,
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
MSgt James Clark-Rosa, Lt Col Mark Avery
1SG Jason Hastings, Sgt David G Duchesneau
COL Lisandro Murphy,
"As the Supreme Court eloquently declared in its landmark 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion ...”'
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, Maj Marty Hogan,
1SG Steven Imerman, SMSgt David A Asbury,
MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi, MSgt David Hoffman,
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
MSgt James Clark-Rosa, Lt Col Mark Avery
1SG Jason Hastings, Sgt David G Duchesneau
COL Lisandro Murphy,
Disinfo v. Democracy
Posted from tabletmag.com
1st Amendment
Media
Social Media
Information
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
Perhaps we should insist that all politicians and news broadcasters wear a lie detector when speaking to the public...
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Free speech vs danger to the public has always been a contentious issue.
I subscribe to the old adage: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Words do have impact, so careful consideration should be given when considering them. Rather than see the privately owned social media sites restrict what they consider harmful, misleading, or disinformation, I would rather they allow the post, but add a full explanation of the facts concerned. However, since I can see that this may be a costly aspect, I can understand why they prefer to just delete the offending post.
A very thin line which needs to be addressed on a daily basis. We must never attempt to control the words of our citizen's, but we have an obligation to the truth, supported by actual facts.
Thin line indeed.
I subscribe to the old adage: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Words do have impact, so careful consideration should be given when considering them. Rather than see the privately owned social media sites restrict what they consider harmful, misleading, or disinformation, I would rather they allow the post, but add a full explanation of the facts concerned. However, since I can see that this may be a costly aspect, I can understand why they prefer to just delete the offending post.
A very thin line which needs to be addressed on a daily basis. We must never attempt to control the words of our citizen's, but we have an obligation to the truth, supported by actual facts.
Thin line indeed.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google