Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1279730)	11/20/2020 9:21:30 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	2 Recommendations Recommended By Mick Mørmøny PKRBKR Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577125

Wharfie, the law against foreign interference in elections is interpreted too broadly. The page that you linked to mentions social media posts, but censoring them is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. It's not the same thing as pornography, and it's not the same thing as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Those are out-of-bounds no matter the source, so those comparisons don't count. Let's take Sly as an example. He posts that mRNA vaccines will turn people into zombies. Posting that is legal no matter how batshit crazy it is. But what if Sly was actually working for the Chinese government? Then what? Is that illegal now? What has changed about the message itself? What has changed about the people who saw the message and was "affected" by it? The answer is nothing. Nada. Zero. It's the same damned lie no matter who posted it. It reaches the same damned people no matter who posted it. It doesn't all of a sudden turn into "pornography" if you find out that the source of the post was the Chinese Communist Party. It doesn't all of a sudden become the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Misinformation is misinformation. The 1st amendment protects the spreading of misinformation because it's up to the public to decide for themselves what to believe. If you disagree, then tell me who should be the arbiters of truth. Mark Zuckerberg? Jack Dorsey? Tenchusatsu