Both VP candidates have authoritarian leanings :(

[icehorse]

Vance won't admit that trump lost

Walz wants to limit free speech in order to limit "hate speech" (whatever that is?)

(both were moments from the debate)

 

[anna.]

Vance won't admit that trump lost

Walz wants to limit free speech in order to limit "hate speech" (whatever that is?)

(both were moments from the debate)

Here's a link to the transcript. I couldn't find "hate speech" in a word search, can you point out your quote for me?

Read the full VP debate transcript from the Walz-Vance showdown

Read the full transcript of the vice presidential debate hosted by CBS News between Sen. JD Vance and Gov. Tim Walz.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[icehorse]

Here's a link to the transcript. I couldn't find "hate speech" in a word search, can you point out your quote for me?

Read the full VP debate transcript from the Walz-Vance showdown

Read the full transcript of the vice presidential debate hosted by CBS News between Sen. JD Vance and Gov. Tim Walz.

www.cbsnews.com

You're correct, but he danced around the idea when he talked about censorship and yelling "fire" in a theater. And BTW, that example is flawed on many levels.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're correct, but he danced around the idea when he talked about censorship and yelling "fire" in a theater. And BTW, that example is flawed on many levels.

Go on, then. Elaborate.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Vance won't admit that trump lost

Walz wants to limit free speech in order to limit "hate speech" (whatever that is?)

(both were moments from the debate)

Trump is a better example of an authoritarian. What do you think about him?

 

[anna.]

You're correct, but he danced around the idea when he talked about censorship and yelling "fire" in a theater. And BTW, that example is flawed on many levels.

So Walz never said the words "hate speech" or said he wanted to "limit free speech" though you said "both were moments from the debate."

Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[icehorse]

Trump is a better example of an authoritarian. What do you think about him?

i hate his guts

 

[Pogo]

You're correct, but he danced around the idea when he talked about censorship and yelling "fire" in a theater. And BTW, that example is flawed on many levels.

And the supreme court has already ruled that the administrations actions did not violate the first amendment.
Basically it is not censorship if the government makes information available and private entities take it into account in making decisions.

 

[icehorse]

So Walz never said the words "hate speech" or said he wanted to "limit free speech" though you said "both were moments from the debate."

Just wanted to clear that up.

Here's the exchange I was referring to, concerning free speech:

JDV: Tim, I'm focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?

TW: That is a damning. That is a damning non answer.


JDV: It's a damning non answer for you to not talk about censorship. Obviously, Donald Trump and I think that there were problems in 2020. We've talked about it. I'm happy to talk about it further. But you guys attack us for not believing in democracy. The most sacred right under the United States democracy is the First Amendment. You yourself have said there's no First Amendment right to misinformation. Kamala Harris wants to use the power of government and big tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this present political moment. I would like Democrats and Republicans to both reject censorship. Let's persuade one another. Let's argue about ideas, and then let's come together afterwards.

TW: You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. That's the test. That's the Supreme court test.

JDV: Tim. Fire in a crowded theater. You guys wanted to kick people off of Facebook for saying that toddlers should not wear masks.

Walz's response of "fire in a theater" is evasive AND factually incorrect. He danced around questions of free speech, correct?

 

[F1fan]

I don’t have a problem with limits to speech in certain situations and circumstances. The point raised was the government limiting disinformation about vaccines and Covid. This is not benign disinformation. This is something that can be deadly to many in society. I don’t care if people talk about Bigfoot and how Trump won the 2020 election, but in matters of public safety and health it makes a difference. We will never know how many people died due to disinformation but it should never be something we have to deal with in mass media.

 

[F1fan]

Here's the exchange I was referring to, concerning free speech:


“JDV: Tim, I'm focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?”

Yeah, Vance lied right here. He was asked if Trump lost in 2020 and he ignores the question snd claims he’s focused on the future, and then asks a question about something in 2020. It’s not even a wise “gotcha” since the basis for the limits on speech were legally sound.

Bad job of deflection when you make such an obvious lie. What’s he afraid of? Trump? Losing his own election? Doesn’t matter because he made such a huge mistake.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I don’t have a problem with limits to speech in certain situations and circumstances. The point raised was the government limiting disinformation about vaccines and Covid. This is not benign disinformation. This is something that can be deadly to many in society. I don’t care if people talk about Bigfoot and how Trump won the 2020 election, but in matters of public safety and health it makes a difference. We will never know how many people died due to disinformation but it should never be something we have to deal with in mass media.

The government didn't limit speech about the vaccines. They asked social media to limit disinformation about it.

 

[icehorse]

I don’t have a problem with limits to speech in certain situations and circumstances. The point raised was the government limiting disinformation about vaccines and Covid. This is not benign disinformation. This is something that can be deadly to many in society. I don’t care if people talk about Bigfoot and how Trump won the 2020 election, but in matters of public safety and health it makes a difference. We will never know how many people died due to disinformation but it should never be something we have to deal with in mass media.

I think we have to push back against dangerous disinformation, but not with censorship.

The problem is that it's not always clear when an idea is disinformation. History is filled with terrible ideas that were seen as "correct" for a period of time.

 

[Kathryn]

The government didn't limit speech about the vaccines.They asked social media to limit it

It's true that the government didn't impose on us specifically, but they did impose all the same.

 

[Pogo]

The government didn't limit speech about the vaccines.They asked social media to limit it

The point is they didn't limit speech any more than sending ad corporations information on the dangers of promoting drinking would have been considered censorship. The government has a right and duty to disseminate information it has generated by the research that it authorizes and pays for.

The argument belongs elsewhere if there is one and the SC agreed when asked.

 

[Pogo]

It's true that the government didn't impose on us specifically, but they did impose all the same.

Am I imposing on you by giving you the benefit of my experience and knowledge? Am I imposing on you if I tell you that the argument you are propagating sounds stupid to me for reasons x,y, and even c?
Is it censorship if based on my information and all the other information available to you, you decide not to say something?

 

[Revoltingest]

So Walz never said the words "hate speech" or said he wanted to "limit free speech" though you said "both were moments from the debate."

Just wanted to clear that up.

Do you think the claim that they both "have authoritarian
leanings" is an attempt to make them appear equally so?

 

[Kathryn]

Am I imposing on you by giving you the benefit of my experience and knowledge? Am I imposing on you if I tell you that the argument you are propagating sounds stupid to me for reasons x,y, and even c?
Is it censorship if based on my information and all the other information available to you, you decide not to say something?

No one is talking about you.

By the way, one of my very best friends is a Democrat and I am a Republican. If she posts something I don't agree with, I just scroll past it and I expect her to do the same, which she does. No one calls anyone stupid and no one decides not to say something.

And you know what else is amazing? We both genuinely care about each other!

 

[anna.]

Do you think the claim that they both "have authoritarian
leanings" is an attempt to make them appear equally so?

Yes.

 

[Ponder This]

Vance won't admit that trump lost

Walz wants to limit free speech in order to limit "hate speech" (whatever that is?)

(both were moments from the debate)

I see how limiting free speech is authoritarian, but how is questioning an election result authoritarian?
Wouldn't it be authoritarian to prevent people from questioning the result of an election?